- Print Friendly - Help

Food Focus

February 06

TRUE COLOURS why food colourings should hold no fear

ON TRACK NZFSA’s performance review

POWERS OF PERSUASION To prosecute – or not

SUMMER FOOD SAFETY Give yourself a grilling with our barbeque quiz

Our regular column on foodborne illnesses looks at Bacillus cereus

Rice not always nice

Bacillus cereus (B. cereus) is a spore-forming bacterium that’s found throughout the environment and occurs naturally in most foods. It grows at temperatures between 30°C and 37°C, though some strains are able to grow at temperatures up to 59°C and some as low as 4°C.

Under certain conditions, such as when food is dried, vacuum-packed, refrigerated or frozen, B. cereus can form spores. These spores are heat resistant and can survive heat treatments such as pasteurisation.

Most B. cereus foodborne illnesses are caused by eating cooked foods (rice products or starchy foods such as potato flakes and pasta) that have been subject to time and temperature abuse (for example, they’ve been cooled too slowly and stored at the wrong temperature: 25°C to 30°C over a few hours).

At these temperatures, B. cereus produces two distinct toxins. One causes vomiting, with symptoms usually appearing between one and six hours after eating the contaminated food. The other causes diarrhoea which can occur up to 12 hours after having eaten. Recovery takes between 12 and 24 hours and there are no long-term effects, though severity of symptoms may vary.

Different strains

The toxins that make you sick grow well in starchy foods and can’t be destroyed through cooking. Those that cause diarrhoea grow in a wide variety of foods, from salads to casseroles. These ones can be destroyed by cooking.

One of the main sources of B. cereus are raw foods of plant origin. Because the organism is so widespread in the environment and can form a resistant spore in difficult conditions, most ready-to-eat foods could contain B. cereus: Dehydrated foods, such as herbs and spices and starchy foods, have also been shown to contain B. cereus.

Cooling large amounts of cooked rice or storing reconstituted dried potato flakes either alone or as part of another food are prime examples of how time and temperature abuse can easily cause B. cereus foodborne illness, so follow these precautions:

• if you’re cooking rice in advance, don’t cook too much all at once as large amounts can be difficult to cool properly

• either keep cooked rice hot (above 60ºC) or cool it as quickly as possible. It’ll cool quicker if you take it out of its hot container and divide it into clean shallow containers (about 10cm deep).

Alternatively, cool it in a colander under cold running water

• cover the cooked rice and store in a refrigerator at temperatures below 4ºC

• use a stock rotation system to ensure that the oldest rice is used first (the “first in, first out” rule).

If you’re using dried potato flakes make sure that once they’re re-hydrated they’re either kept hot at above 60ºC, or cooled and stored in the fridge until you need them.

No direct health hazard

It takes large amounts of B. cereus in a food to cause an outbreak. Small amounts of the bacteria in food are not a direct health hazard, and it’s sometimes found in low levels in the gut of people and animals. B. cereus is not notifiable as a foodborne illness in New Zealand, which means there’s not enough data available to indicate trends. Most incidents affect only a few individuals at any time.

In 2000, a B. cereus outbreak caused 27 cases of foodborne illness in Rotorua. The suspected foods included savoury rice, potato and mashed pumpkin. International reports mention one case that involved 600 people who fell ill after contracting a B.cereus infection caused by a vanilla sauce that had been stored incorrectly.

More information on B.cereus is available in a fact sheet form on the NZFSA website. Visit: http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/foodborne-illness-stomach-bugs/.

Editorial

It appears we have hit the ground running in 2006!

Our work around the Domestic Food Review continues apace.

NZFSA has been consulting on this major project for more than a year and seven public discussion papers have been released in that time.

The feedback from these has now been incorporated into a position paper for a final round of public comment. This will give you your last chance to have a say on the proposals and to influence the future direction of food safety regulation in New Zealand.

To this end we’ve also set up a series of workshops around the country during February. These workshops will give you the opportunity to have a say on the proposals put forward by NZFSA so far. All points made at the workshops will be treated as oral submissions. If you’re unable to attend one of these question and answer sessions, you can post us your written submission before April 28. Check out our website for more information.

Alongside the DFR, we’re proud to announce the launch of our new booklet – Food Safety When You Have Low Immunity. It has already been well received by health providers and we are confident it will prove every bit as popular as its stablemate Food Safety in Pregnancy. Low immunity can affect every New Zealander at least once in their lives and infections, including foodborne illness, can be life-threatening when the immune system is not functioning at its peak.

The booklet is not all about what not to eat or do. Rather, it provides useful advice about how to eat a safe and healthy diet during those times when you are more susceptible to infection from pathogens. It’s designed to take the worry out of eating particular foods.

Also in this issue you’ll read about our work to date on reassessing the science surrounding pasteurisation methods, how we deal with non-compliance in food production and a summary of the Scott Report – a survey that measures the performance and objectives of NZFSA against the expectations of you, the stakeholder. We’re quite pleased with the results and will continue throughout 2006 to ensure we have a world-leading regulatory food safety programme that has or gains your confidence.

If there are any other subjects you’d like to see covered in Food Focus in the coming year, feel free to contact our editor, Diane Robinson, with your ideas.

Andrew McKenzie

Food Focus is a publication of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. It is published four times a year and widely distributed. For more information, or editorial enquiries about Food Focus please contact Diane Robinson, Senior Advisor (Communications) on 04 463 2528 or email diane.robinson@nzfsa.govt.nz

New Zealand Food Safety Authority

PO Box 2835 86 Jervois Quay, Wellington, New Zealand Phone 04 463 2500, Fax 04 463 2501 For subscription enquiries or changes to your subscription details, please contact Rebecca Martin on 04 463 3400 or email: rebecca.martin@nzfsa.govt.nz ISSN (1175-9348)

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

Every effort has been made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate. NZFSA does not accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any error of fact, omission, interpretation or opinion that may be present, however it may have occurred.

New Zealand hosts OECD delegates

A display of aerial crop spraying and the various other spray options open to farmers, orchardists and winegrowers proved an eye opener for a group of international regulators who have been in New Zealand to look at ways of improving pesticide registration and use worldwide

Delegates from Europe, America, Australia and Japan were in Wellington in December as members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Pesticides.

During a field trip to the Wairarapa, the group watched reconstructions of aerial and boom spraying in a pastoral setting, air-blast spraying in an apple orchard and over-row spraying in a vineyard. Vice-chair of the Working Group, John Reeve, said the visitors were delighted with what they saw and learned a great deal about application technology in pesticide risk reduction in New Zealand – much of which he believes allayed their original concerns about spray drift, particularly with aerial spraying.

The delegates were in Wellington to continue their ongoing discussions on ways of speeding up the process of approving safer, new pesticides and the methods of using them, and stopping the use of riskier ones.

Twin issues

The Working Group is split into two steering groups which are addressing the twin issues of pesticide registration and risk reduction. Their meetings at Te Papa during the first week of December were only the second time they had met in the southern hemisphere.

One of their main aims was to promote the Working Group’s vision to increase intergovernmental cooperation in the evaluation and regulation of pesticides, which will lead to big savings in time and resources without compromising the robustness of the process.

John Reeve told Food Focus: “For a lot of the visitors it was the first time they’d had the opportunity to speak to farmers and growers and find out how they apply and use the pesticides, and see the spraying in action.

“They had this concept of spray drift, which is an environmentally contentious issue. However, it was obvious to them that the sprayers used in New Zealand are designed to cut down the drift in all sorts of ways. So when it came to the seminar at Te Papa they were able to relate their discussions to what they had seen in the field and so reach practical conclusions.”

Harmonising data packages

Members of the Registration Steering Group were able to progress OECD work in harmonising the data packages around toxicology and residue assessments.

At present the traditional approach involves countries individually assessing the data that comes from a chemical company when it produces a new product. The new system will lead to the assessment task being split among several designated countries and accepted by the rest as the basis for their decision-making on any necessary risk management. Says John: “It is hoped to have the new system in place within 10 years. It’s a slow progress, but the data packages have now been harmonised and we were able to talk about how the new system will work.

New assessment regime

“Two pesticide manufacturers have offered their products to be considered under the new assessment regime and work will begin on at least one of those in 2007. New Zealand is likely to be propelled into the spotlight as it takes on the coordinating role for the countries that will undertake the residues part of the assessment.

“The Registration Steering Group also revisited the data packages behind earlier pesticide assessments to see whether there is any value in going beyond, say, three-month feeding studies as opposed to the more common one or two year studies.”

Explains John: “Does a two year feeding study in a rat give any more or different data than can be obtained from a one-year or even a 90-day study? US delegates are gathering data that suggests that changes may be able to be made to the current data requirements to streamline the process.

“If other OECD countries come round to their way of thinking it is possible that prolonged testing could be abandoned, saving animals, and time and money in both the amount of data produced and the resources needed to assess that data.

“This concept was raised for the first time at this meeting and though some countries continue to press for more or longer studies, it’s likely the subject will be put forward for further discussion at the next OECD meeting in Paris later this month.

Key outcomes

“Key outcomes from the Te Papa seminar, from the risk-reduction viewpoint, included the field trip and consequent discussions around application technology.

“I’m convinced that, as a result of these the OECD will make recommendations to other member countries which will have a positive spin-off.

“On the registration side, New Zealand is now playing a key role in advancing the work-sharing arrangement and our efforts are seen in a very good light by other OECD countries.

“Added to that, our visitors were blown away by the natural beauty of New Zealand and our Wellington surrounds. Many remarked that they could now understand why we choose to live here and travel to and from their European meetings, and were keen to organise holidays here to further explore what the country has to offer.”

Food safety when you have low immunity

A new booklet that focuses on safe food handling for those with compromised immune systems has been produced by NZFSA and the Foodsafe Partnership

Food Safety When You Have Low Immunity reinforces the 4Cs message of clean, cook, cover, chill and is aimed at those who are more vulnerable to foodborne illnesses.

Those with weak immune systems – the immune compromised – are at higher risk of contracting foodborne illness, which could have more serious consequences for people whose system is not so able to fight it.

There are various conditions, surgical or medical treatments that can reduce immunity. These range from immune-suppressant drugs, cancer treatments and transplant procedures, through to poorly controlled diabetes mellitus and low stomach acidity, as well as extremes of age accompanied by ongoing illnesses.

If you have low immunity and you think you may have an illness caused by food, you should contact your doctor right away.

The symptoms

It can take from as little as 20 minutes to several weeks to become sick with a foodborne illness after eating unsafe food (and often it is not caused by the last food you ate).

Foodborne illness can be mild but sometimes (especially if you have low immunity) it can be life-threatening or cause death. Symptoms of foodborne illness may include:

• nausea or vomiting

• stomach cramps or pains

• diarrhoea

• fever or chills

• headache muscle or joint aches.

Important pathogens that cause foodborne illness in people with low immunity include:

• campylobacter

• listeria

• salmonella

• VTEC (E.coli 0157:H7)

• cryptosporidium

• giardia

• toxoplasma.

Food Safety When You Have Low Immunity identifies high risk and safer foods and has handy tips on buying food, taking it home, storing, thawing and cooking it safely.

All food carries small numbers of pathogens and there’s no way food can be completely risk-free. However, some foods should be avoided when your immunity is low and the booklet has easy-toread at-a-glance details that set out which ones you can eat and those you should avoid.

Eating out

Important points to remember when reheating and microwaving, handling dairy products and what to avoid when eating out or buying a takeaway are also included.

The booklet follows on from NZFSA’s hugely successful Food

Safety in Pregnancy and has been a collaborative effort among food

safety experts.

Like the Food Safety in Pregnancy booklet, Food Safety When You Have Low Immunity also covers safe drinking water and important points to consider regarding food safety and overseas travel, pets and farm animals and gardening

“Many New Zealanders with low immunity don’t even realize that they are at risk of foodborne illness. This booklet provides information which is of use to both those with low immunity and their health professionals,” says Donald Campbell, NZFSA’s Principal Advisor of Public Health.

The booklet will be available free from NZFSA.

To order, phone Rebecca Martin on 0800 NZFSA1 (0800 693 721).

PASTEURISATION: back to the future

NZFSA is reassessing the methods behind pasteurisation and going back to the lab with Louis Pasteur’s discovery.

The move could see raw milk cheeses such as Roquefort on New Zealand supermarket shelves for the first time (currently unavailable here because the production process does not involve pasteurisation) as well as provide New Zealand manufacturers with the opportunity to produce their own raw-milk cheeses.

Lisa Gallagher, NZFSA’s pasteurization project manager, explains: “The time and temperature combinations for the pasteurisation of milk were developed over 60 years ago from laboratory experiments with milk-borne micro-organisms that were considered the greatest risk to human health at the time – such as Mycobacterium bovis, which causes bovine tuberculosis (TB), Brucella spp., which cause Brucellosis and Coxiella burnetii, which causes Q fever. We need to reassess whether these experiments are relevant today.

Compulsory testing

“The micro-organisms that were used in these experiments may no longer be appropriate. Compulsory testing of cattle for bovine TB means that infected cattle are likely to be identified and removed from the milk herd long before the disease progresses to the stage where the bacteria are excreted in the milk. In addition, New Zealand is currently officially free from Brucellosis. Coxiella burnetii is also not present in New Zealand (though both are in other parts of the world).

“In addition, the science used in the original pasteurisation studies does not reflect today’s manufacturing processes,” says Lisa.

“The time and temperature combinations for pasteurisation were developed by inoculating milk with various pathogens and heating it in a water bath in the laboratory to identify when the pathogens were inactivated.

“This bears no comparison to the heavily technical and engineering-based systems in use today. Recent work also indicates that laboratory-based studies may underestimate the effectiveness of the modern commercial systems.

“The time and temperature combinations for pasteurisation are 72ºC for 15 seconds or 63ºC for 30 minutes. There may well be other ways of treating milk, at lower temperatures perhaps, or alternative methods that may provide an appropriate level of consumer protection.

“Current New Zealand standards mean that if a manufacturer wants to produce a raw milk cheese it can only do so using a method that provides the consumer with a level of protection equivalent to pastuerisation.

“However, until we can assess the inactivation of pathogens during pasteurisation under modern conditions, an alternative method cannot be assessed as equivalent.”

Results from the pasteurisation studies will be fed into a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) which will assess the risk to consumers from eating unpasteurised milk and milk products. The QRA will be used to assess the risk from milk products produced using alternative methods.

Fundamentals of science

It’s an exciting prospect for Lisa and a first for New Zealand. “Scientists in America and Europe have been discussing the idea for years but haven’t been able to get industry on board,” she says.

“It means we’ll be revisiting the fundamentals of science. Pasteurisation is scientific dogma – one of the building blocks of microbiology – and we’re going to be pulling all that apart and starting again.”

Lisa is chair of an experimental design group of experts, including microbiologists, statisticians and engineers from NZFSA, Environmental Science and Research (ESR), Massey University and Fonterra, that is working to develop the methodology on which the project is based. “Our methodology will then be peer reviewed by international experts,” she says.

It’s a project that is likely to take two years. The team is already testing various methods at Fonterra’s Palmerston North plant which was chosen because it has one of the few pilot plant pasteurisers in the world.

POWERS OF PERSUASION

NZFSA sees varying degrees of non-compliance in food production every day but prosecutes in less than 10% of cases. Geoff Allen, head of Compliance and Investigation, explains why the biggest stick isn’t always the best deterrent.

Just as there’s more than one way to skin a cat (if you’ll forgive the metaphor), so there’s more than one way to deal with non-compliance of a food product.

Geoff Allen (pictured) director of NZFSA’s Compliance and Investigation Group (CIG) – often seen as the eyes, ears and big stick of NZFSA – says prosecutions, such as those recently brought against dairy farmers whose bobby calves tested positive for sulphonamide drug residues, are sometimes a last option when it comes to ensuring the law is upheld.

Although CIG comes up against varying levels of non-compliance every day, it prosecutes in less than 10% of cases.

“Prosecution is often seen by the public as the tool of choice, the ultimate punishment for anyone who breaks the rules,” says Geoff. “We’re always being asked, ‘Is NZFSA going to prosecute?’

Last resort

“The fact is,” he says, “prosecution can sometimes be a last resort because it can be slow, expensive and unpredictable.” It also provides just one of three possible solutions to the problem. When CIG identifies an example of non-compliance, it needs to do three things quickly:

• contain the risk

• correct the fault

• prevent the same thing happening again.

“Prosecuting someone doesn’t stop the non-compliance from happening, nor does it contain the risks in the affected food or force the correction of the fault,” says Geoff.

“However, as was evident in the bobby calf prosecutions, the judge made the point that a sufficient deterrent was necessary to ensure the community was protected and that perpetrators are denounced – which proves that prosecution can and does provide a valuable mechanism for deterring others from doing the same thing.

Powers and sanctions

“In other cases the powers and sanctions available to NZFSA as part of the legislation surrounding the Food, Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines, Animal Products and

Wine acts that we administer, provide far more useful and immediate ways of responding to those who break the rules.

“These range from benign options such as education and guidance, presentations and training, through to higher levels of response such as warnings, sanctions and increased levels of auditing.

“These powers and sanctions also allow a food product to be seized, destroyed or prohibited from sale and can force the closure of the premises involved in its production. These actions all contain the risk, correct the fault and prevent it happening again – and they do so in a much quicker and more reliable fashion than prosecution.”

Decisions surrounding the size and type of response to a noncompliance are made on a case-by-case basis but there are some basic principles that must be considered and a range of responses that may be appropriate.

Enforcement options

Diagram 1 shows the whole spectrum of responses and ways to classify them and Diagram 2 focuses on the enforcement options available for more controversial responses. In all cases, the response must match the seriousness of the risk. But how is the risk measured?

CIG looks at:

• food safety issues

• market access issues

• size of risk exposure

• epetitive nature of the non-compliance

• whether the issue sets a precedent.

“It’s logical to react more strongly, for instance, when Salmonella is found in a food, than you would if you were dealing with the absence of a nutritional information panel on a label,” explains Geoff.

“It’s the same for issues that could stop our export trade, such as the recent case involving endosulfan levels, or if a food has been distributed nationally as opposed to being confined to just one outlet, or where the rules are being broken repetitively and deliberately as opposed to once, by accident.

“Responses to breaches of new rules or of old rules in new ways will also gain greater response because they’ll set the precedent.”

Systems and rules

CIG has 23 investigators and assessors based around the country. As well as responding to complaints it audits the performance and effectiveness of the industry and its verifiers, and assesses the appropriateness of the systems and rules that food manufacturers must follow.

It does this by comparing what is supposed to be happening with what actually is happening, analyses the causes of any differences it finds, and takes corrective and punitive action where needed.

CIG also hosts the regular audits of New Zealand’s systems that are carried out by the regulatory authorities of our trading partners. “There can be up to a dozen audits in any year,” says Geoff.

Bobby calf prosecutions

NZFSA has recently brought successful prosecutions under the Animal Products Act 1999 against two dairy farmers who sent bobby calves for slaughter which subsequently tested positive for sulphonamide drug residues. The prosecutions relate to the 2004 bobby calf season.

Peter Allan, a dairy farmer from Featherston and Keith McIntosh a dairy farmer in Leeston, south of Christchurch, pleaded guilty and were fined for failing to comply with a notice made under the Animal Products Act 1999.

The notice prohibits suppliers of farmed mammals from presenting animal material for primary processing if it has been treated with or exposed to a registered agricultural compound and is within the withholding period. In both instances the animals were found to have been exposed to compounds used in the treatment of calf scours. The compounds contained sulphonamide drugs.

As bobby calves are less than two weeks old at the time of slaughter, they cannot be treated with a compound for scours and also comply with the required withholding period for those compounds of at least 14 days.

Failing to comply

Mr Allan faced two charges of failing to comply with the notice without reasonable excuse after two calves he sent to Affco’s meat processing plant at Imlay in Wanganui tested positive for sulphonamides.

In the second case, a bobby calf sent by Mr McIntosh to PPCS meat processing plant at Fairton near Ashburton returned a positive sulphonamide test result.

Breaches of the notice can carry a maximum fine of up to $20,000. Passing sentence on Mr Allan at Wanganui District Court, Judge Clapham noted that though offending of this kind was not prevalent, he believed deterrence and denouncing of conduct for similar mistakes was necessary, and noted the requirement to ensure the community was protected.

He subsequently fined Mr Allan a total of $1,000 and ordered him to pay $150 solicitor’s costs and $130 court costs on each charge. In the second case, Mr McIntosh appeared in the Christchurch District Court before Judge MacAskill who fined him $500 and ordered him to pay $250 solicitor’s costs and $130 court costs.

Public punishment

Geoff Allen, NZFSA’s Director of Compliance and Investigation, said: “I am pleased with these results. It serves as further evidence that farmers who choose to jeopardise our animal products markets by misusing veterinary medicines stand a very good chance of being caught and publicly punished.

“I urge all farmers to scrupulously observe the dosage rates and withholding times provided on the labels and by the prescribing veterinarian and ensure that their farming practices protect against inadvertent contaminations.”

NZFSA on track

A survey to measure the performance and objectives of NZFSA against the expectations of its stakeholders has stated that the organisation is performing well and that stakeholders are generally satisfied.

The Scott Report, researched and prepared by Drs Graham Scott and Lynne McKenzie, was commissioned by NZFSA as part of a performance review of its first three years of operation and to compare its approaches with internationally aligned best-practice procedures.

The review considered the views of two New Zealand government ministers and respondents from 47 organisations, including industries and their representative entities, consumer representatives, Food Safety Advisory Board (FSAB) members, regulators within New Zealand and overseas, other government ministries and international and bilateral standards-setters.

Overall NZFSA was rated very well by stakeholders on its performance against its vision – to be a world leading food regulatory programme that has the confidence of all its stakeholders –and its mission: to protect consumers and enhance New Zealand’s position as a trusted supplier of food.

Key operational areas

The survey asked contributors to rate NZFSA’s performance against a series of ministerial objectives, flagship objectives, its performance in key operational areas, best practice principles for regulators and its performance compared with other international food authorities.

Overall, NZFSA rated well against all the objectives with a large number of stakeholders rating us as very good, or better. Ratings below the neutral level were rare.

Eight representatives from four overseas regulators were asked to rate our performance as a food regulator compared with other OECD countries in terms of being in the top, second, third or lowest quartile. All eight placed NZFSA in the top quartile, and indicated that the organisation is very highly regarded internationally.

SPS Agreement

The review of our performance as a regulator in terms of our compliance with the World Trade Organisation’s SPS Agreement also indicated that we performed very well. Three of the four overseas representatives that specifically compared us with other country regulators rated our performance as notably higher.

Stakeholders also commended NZFSA on its:

• leadership and quality of staff

• approach to work

• management of change

• credibility and reputation

• management of crisis situations

• international representation and maintenance of multilateral and bilateral strategic alliances, networks and links.

Lessons learned

While overall assessments were encouraging, some areas for improvement were noted and NZFSA has put in place a programme to address issues identified as needing further attention.

There were conflicting views on how well the organization performed in the public health area and some health sector respondents considered that NZFSA needed to place more emphasis on the public health aspects of their work, although most of them felt the Domestic Food Review would lead to improvements.

Health sector respondents tended to rate NZFSA’s performance as generally lower than other respondents. Some of the doctors interviewed raised a question about whether trade issues were placed ahead of public health interests – for example, letting concerns about compliance costs prevent some public health actions being taken.

The different risk approaches of the health sector and a regulator with wider responsibilities were also discussed. One of the ministers pointed out that this can be a healthy tension.

NZFSA was commended by a senior health sector respondent from the Ministry of Health (MoH) for its memorandum of understanding with the ministry and for maintaining the role of the public health units (PHUs) through its contracts with them.

Performing well

In summary, the overall impression is that NZFSA is a competent regulator, having received favourable comments on many aspects on its performance from members of all the groups surveyed.

Andrew McKenzie, NZFSA Executive Director commented: “The results were really pleasing. We are a young organisation but already appear to be performing above expectations, according to many stakeholders.

“There were also comments not quite so positive that we will focus on and address as appropriate. We are keen to be seen as administering a world-leading food regulatory programme that has the confidence of all stakeholders.”

NEWS IN BRIEF

BSE Categorisation Measure published

The report from the recent review of New Zealand’s BSE Country Categorisation Measure has been released. The review team considered the latest scientific developments, international experience and the OIE’s (World Organisation for Animal Health) updated Terrestrial Animal Health Code when it developed recommendations for updating the BSE Measure.

The recommendations include revising the country categories and expanding the list of commodities that are free from BSE infectivity, and can therefore be imported without additional requirements. The report can be downloaded from NZFSA’s website (www.nzfsa.govt.nz). Hard copies are available by phoning NZFSA1 (0800 693 721).

2006 conference dates

NZFSA’s 2006 annual conference will be held in Auckland on November 1 and 2 2006. The venue will be the Hermitage Hotel. More details will become available later in the year.

Odd spot

Next time you consider eating lunch at your desk, think again. A study by Professor Charles P Gerba, of the University of Arizona’s Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science found 400 times more germs at a workplace desk than on the average toilet seat. Apparently, the phone comes out as the germiest object in the office, followed by the desktop, keyboard, mouse, fax machine, and photocopier. Where are the least germs in the office? By now, you should have guessed: the toilet seat.

Death of Ole Sørensen

With regret we record the death, in Oamaru in January, of Dr Ole Sørensen, former assistant director, Meat Division. He had retired from MAF in 1982 and was 88.

A graduate of the Royal Veterinary College, Copenhagen, Ole came to New Zealand in the early 1960s and was closely associated with the re-organisation that created the Regional Meat Veterinarian and Regional Meat Inspector positions. During his time as assistant director to John McNab, his principal task was to oversee the regional management system and endeavour to align inspection standards nationwide.

His services to the New Zealand meat industry were recognized by his being awarded the Queen’s Service Medal.

They said it

“Breadbaking is one of those almost hypnotic businesses, like a dance from some ancient ceremony. It leaves you filled with one of the world’s sweetest smells... there is no chiropractic treatment, no Yoga exercise, no hour of meditation in a music-throbbing chapel, that will leave you emptier of bad thoughts than this homely ceremony of making bread.” (M.F.K. Fisher, The Art of Eating)

DFR – MAPPING OUT THE FUTURE

NZFSA has embarked on the next phase of the Domestic Food Review and is set to release a position paper, an associated summary paper and brochure

The latest consultation paper, Domestic Food Review – Position Paper, will describe NZFSA’s vision for the future food regulatory system. It takes into account written and oral submissions received on the previous seven papers.

The paper covers the range of topics covered in the previous papers as well as a few extra things that were identified as important during the earlier consultation. It includes an updated glossary on the terms used in the food system and detail about the background and scope of, and the reasons for, the review.

Regulatory hierarchy

The hierarchy of food regulation is not expected to change. NZFSA proposes to keep the current three levels of food regulation (see diagram), but re-allocate roles and responsibilities among them to provide consistency and retain a local point of contact across the country.

NZFSA and the public health units are expected to work more closely together on activities such as compliance, investigation, calibration, systems audit and evaluating and approving Food Control Plans (FCPs).

Territorial authorities (TAs) will undertake registrations and permitting, investigations, enforcement and verification. They will be the first place that businesses go for advice on the level of food safety management necessary; eg, whether an FCP is adequate or if a national programme is available and appropriate.

Food safety management

One of the new concepts to come out of the process is the formalisation of three levels of food safety management; everybody selling food will fall into one of the levels. Where a business fits will be relative to the risk its products pose to the public and their reach into the community. Generally, the smaller the risk the less intervention and the simpler the food safety management system will be.

The three levels are:

1. National programmes (eg, regulated control schemes)

These will be used in situations where it is appropriate for risks to be managed on a national basis, including programmes that have been developed by regulation (eg, monitoring foods for export). Very few small, general food retailers (eg, restaurants and local dairies) will be involved at this level.

2. Risk-based management programmes called Food Control Plans (FCPs) will be used for most food businesses.

There will be two types of FCPs – template (off-the-peg) and custom-made. A small business, such as a café, is likely to simply fill in information on a set of forms to show how they will manage food safety.

Often this will be as easy as ticking boxes or recording the names of staff responsible for certain tasks.

A more complex operation, such as a food manufacturer, will develop their own FCP to suit their particular process and circumstances, or modify an off-the-peg one. All businesses will have the choice of using an off-the-peg FCP, modify an FCP or develop their own.

3. Food handling guidance will be used for small, one-off events such as community fundraising stalls.

They will be a combination of guidelines and helpful hints, available from TAs, as is currently the case in many parts of New Zealand.

Other topics in the paper include:

• implementing an FCP

• dealing with non-compliances

• cost recovery

• training and education.

Want to know more?

More detailed information, a full position paper and summary version will be available for download from the website (www.nzfsa.govt.nz). Submissions will be accepted until late April. Hard copies will be available from Rebecca Martin on 0800 693 721.

When the submissions have been collated, NZFSA’s final position and recommendations will be put to Government mid-way through 2006 and drafting of any changes to legislation to reflect Government’s decisions is expected to begin later in the year.

No news is good news

“New Zealand’s meat hygiene service can fairly claim to be the All Blacks of international trade in animal products”

The meat hygiene service is one of New Zealand’s success stories. Yet few realise the contribution to the nation made by thousands of meat inspectors and hundreds of meat veterinarians down the years with no fuss, and no blowing of bugles.

It was for this reason that Derek Robinson, NZFSA’s former Animal Products Programme Manager, decided to write a history of the service, spanning more than 100 years from1898 to 2002.

No News is Good News catalogues the achievements of the meat hygiene service during that time.

“The title was chosen because in the realm of food safety, the absence of media attention is a sign that the risks are being successfully managed,” says Derek, who worked for MAF in various roles from 1976 till his retirement from NZFSA in March last year. “But, by the same token, the achievements of the service have largely gone unnoticed.

Leading the world

“I felt the story needed to be told, so that it can be held up as an example of how New Zealand, as a small player on the international scene, overcame its lack of economic and political leverage to lead the world in meat inspection and risk management, how an industry went from having one export market – Britain – to over 160 countries today.

“It’s the story of how, over 104 years, the service ensured that New Zealand-produced meat (and related products) could be safely consumed and freely traded internationally.”

Since its creation in 1898, the service (the term is used loosely as a compromise between meat inspection and meat hygiene) has undergone three distinct organizational periods. From 1840-1963 it was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture; from 1963 – 1986 it was the Meat Division. The years covering1987 – 2002 are distinguished as the Modern Era, ending with the formation of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority on July 1 2002.

T R U E C O L O U R S

Next time your children are seen munching on lollies and slurping drinks of a colour you’d prefer to see confined to a paint box, don’t panic. A study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research shows that highly coloured foods are fine.

The colour of food can influence how we perceive its quality and appeal. Natural and synthetic colours have historically been used to increase our desire for certain foods. The natural colours have been gradually supplemented by synthetic colours which are now commonly used by the food, drug and cosmetic industries.

Concerns have centred around some foods commonly eaten by children and adolescents that may contain excessively high levels of synthetic colourings to increase their appeal.

Some synthetic food colours, particularly tartrazine, have been implicated in cases of adverse reactions ascribed to food, such as asthma, urticaria/hives and hyperactivity.

Allergy-like reactions

Cases of food colour-induced asthma or other allergy-like reactions have been documented but these cases are extremely rare and usually only occur in those who are sensitive to a wide range of environmental dietary components. Allergic reactions are most commonly caused by food.

Studies examining the links between synthetic food colours and hyperactivity are beset by difficulties, such as how the hyperactivity is assessed. An Australasian expert committee has concluded that “well-designed studies have failed to show a consistent relationship between a wide range of behavioural problems in childhood and the consumption of food additives”.

The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (FSC) sets maximum levels for synthetic colours. Under this code most synthetic colours are allowed in drinks to a maximum concentration of 70 mg per litre and in other foods to a maximum concentration of 290 mg per kilogram. There are exceptions though:

• erythrosine is only permitted in preserved cherries – 200 mg/kg

• amaranth – 30mg/l in drinks and 300 mg/kg in confectionery.

Levels of colourings

In 2000, ESR conducted a study to determine levels of synthetic food colourings in particular foods that were visually intensely colourful and targeted at children and adolescents.

Six per cent of samples analysed – that’s 15/253 – were found to contain amounts of food colouring in excess of the maximum levels specified in the FSC. Most of the non-compliant samples (11 out of the 15) were confectionery.

Although these results did not comply with the FSC, it was not clear that they posed any health implications, so further studies were done that would:

• summarise the toxicological information on certain food colouring compounds, particularly: tartrazine, sunset yellow FCF, allura red AC, ponceau 4R, brilliant blue FCF, amaranth, green S azorubine (carmiosine) and erythrosine

• estimate the exposure to these compounds for children and adolescents aged 5-15

• assess the public health risk by comparing them with Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI), as established by the Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives. The ADI is a measure of the quantity of a particular chemical in food that can be consumed on a daily basis over a lifetime without harm.

Toxicological studies

There have been numerous animal toxicology studies on synthetic food colours and for most of the colours no adverse effects were seen, even when the colours were fed at the rate of 5% of the total diet. Typically, human consumption of food colours would be less than 0.01% of the total diet.

The exceptions were high-dose effects related to amaranth which was linked to calcium deposits found in the kidneys, and erythrosine, used in preserved cherries, which caused impaired thyroid function. As a result ADIs for these colours have been set well below the dose levels at which effects were observed and have large safety factors built in. The FSC also sets maximum levels for additives (including colours) and limits the range of foods in which an additive can be used where this is necessary to ensure that consumers are unlikely to exceed the ADI for any particular colour.

Dietary exposure estimates

Exposure estimates were derived by taking the average levels of food colours found in confectionery and drinks in the original 1999/2000 ESR study and combining them with the information from the 2002 National Children’s Nutrition Survey (CNS). The CNS surveyed more than 3000 New Zealand children and adolescents and recorded what they had eaten in the previous 24 hours.

Average dietary exposures ranged from as low as 0.02mg/day for erythrosine to 2.6 mg/day for tartrazine.

The dietary exposure estimates took into account differences in body weight and were compared to the internationally agreed ADIs. Overall, average exposure estimates for all of the food colours were found to be less than 5% of the relevant ADI.

Exposure estimates were also generated for two age-related subgroups (5-12 years and 13-15 years). Dietary exposure estimates for food colours, expressed on a per body weight basis, were generally higher for the younger age group but average estimates for all food colours were still less than 5% of the ADI. High consumer exposure estimates (that is, those deemed to be at or above the 95th percentile level) were all equal to or less than 15% of the relevant ADIs.

Given that there is a large safety margin built into the ADI, ESR found that dietary exposure to synthetic food colours for New Zealand children and adolescents is highly unlikely to present an unacceptable health risk.

• The information in this article was taken from the NZFSA fact sheet Synthetic colours in highly coloured foods eaten by New Zealand children and adolescents. It can be downloaded from the NZFSA website at: http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/chemicals-nutrients-additives-and-toxins/food-colourings/foodcolouring.htm.

Find out more

To check what additives are in foods, read the label. All food ingredients, including any additives, must be listed on the label of a food. The ingredients are listed in descending order of ingoing weight. On the label, within the list of ingredients, the class name of the additive will be listed and then the additive name or code number in brackets.

For more information, NZFSA publishes Identifying Food Additives, a handy handbag-sized booklet which lists food additives in their class name and numerical order and explains what they do and why they are used. It’s available free by calling 0800 NZFSA1 (0800 693 721).

Invisible ENEMY

Hamilton’s deputy mayor Bob Simcock reflects on the effects of a foodborne illness

Many of us have had a bout of food poisoning. Most of the time the uncomfortable effects are short-lived: often less than a day. But how many of us realize that what seems like a simple case of an upset stomach could trigger a crippling, life threatening illness?

“I was fit, healthy. I’d never heard of Guillain–Barré syndrome. At the time I’d just got over a nasty stomach upset which I subsequently discovered was a bout of Campylobacter,” says Hamilton deputy mayor and former National MP Bob Simcock.

Campylobacter, a bacterium carried in the gut of the sheep, cows and chickens, causes more foodborne illness in New Zealand than any other, such as Salmonella. It gets on to our food during processing and though it’s normally killed by cooking, it can be spread to ready-to-eat foods through unhygienic food preparation practices. Cross-contamination can easily occur via hands and equipment.

At the time Bob was a busy MP who ate out most nights and doesn’t know how he contracted Campylobacter. After a few days he felt better and flew to Oamaru for meetings.

Pins and needles

“But my legs just gave way. It was close to the end of a hectic year, and believing I was just tired, I got on the plane and flew home.

“It was soon apparent that it was more than mere fatigue. My legs were hot and painful with intense pins and needles, waking me several times during the night.

By the next morning I could hardly walk.” Neurologists confirmed that Bob was suffering from Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (pronounced ghee-yan bah-ray) strikes one in 100,000 people after they’ve had an infection such as Campylobacter.

For some unknown reason the immune system is triggered to attack the nerve sheaths. Damage disrupts the nerve signals that are vital for proper movement of muscles and sensing of heat, cold and pressure. Symptoms appear within days with varying degrees of tingling and weakness in the legs. Very quickly the damage spreads to the arms and upper body.

Paralysed

“By day seven, my legs and left arm were largely paralysed. Any activity – even moving across the room – was totally exhausting. It took all my energy to shuffle from my bed to a chair. I spent months in a recliner chair. It became my office and I worked from there.”

Later, Bob was to count himself lucky – that the paralysis hadn’t spread inwards

to his lungs and heart.

“Doctors could not guarantee my recovery – they kept saying what will be, will be.”

It took three years to achieve the degree of movement he has now. One foot remains partly numb and the soles of his feet still throb with heat at night. His calf is distorted. He says: “I don’t run any more as I can’t control my foot properly. I get severe cramps in my legs and then I have to force myself to walk.”

Busy work schedule

With a busy work schedule Bob tried to get on with life. For the first six months he was very weak and it was fortunate that as Parliament did not sit over the summer he could work from home. But it was exhausting just to stay mobile.

“My job was high-paced and competitive,” he says, “and I know there is little compassion or tolerance for personal frailty in politics.” Consequently he did not discuss his illness publicly.

Bob’s recovery and his gradual increase in health and mobility over the next three years followed a relatively normal course.

Patients reach their weakest point within three weeks of onset. Medical opinion differs on the proportion of people who fully recover, and varies from 15% to 70%. For 1%-3% of sufferers it will be fatal, and most will have suffered some permanent nerve damage.

Mild to moderate

Bob’s case was considered mild to moderate. Through extensive reading he learned of people far worse off, having been left with paralysis and residual weakness. Fellow National MP Bill Birch had it and is now the patron of the Guillain-Barré support group.

“I’m relieved to be beyond it,” says Bob. Left with a refreshing amount of mobility, he distinctly remembers the devastating speed of the illness, and the uncertainty of his recovery.

Bob will never know how he contracted Campylobacter in the first place. It may have been contact with animals; it may have been from contaminated food or food preparation areas. He believes it could have been prevented. Maybe food was contaminated from poorly washed hands and equipment – on raw meat perhaps, and left at perfect growth temperature on the bench. Maybe then it wasn’t cooked for long enough above 60° C, or became reinfected from contaminated hands. At any stage of the food process, the risks could have been significantly reduced.

Is Bob now more aware of how he prepares food? “Well, something like this will always heighten your awareness to the possibilities of contamination … these days I’m more careful with chicken and meat and with ensuring that I never use the meat knife to cut other food without washing it thoroughly.”

MORE ABOUT GUILLAIN-BARRÉ

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), also called acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and Landry’s ascending paralysis, is an inflammatory disorder of the peripheral nerves – those outside the brain and spinal cord.

It is characterised by the rapid onset of weakness and often paralysis of the legs, arms, breathing muscles and face.

It typically begins with weakness and/or abnormal sensations of the legs and arms. It can also affect muscles of the chest, face and eyes. Although many cases are mild, some patients are virtually paralysed.

Although most people recover, the length of the illness is unpredictable and often months of hospital care are required. The majority of patients eventually return to a normal or near-normal lifestyle, but many endure a protracted recovery and some remain wheelchair-bound indefinitely.

Cause unknown

The cause of GBS is not known and there is no effective treatment. Around half of all cases occur shortly after a microbial (viral or bacterial) infection such as a sore throat or diarrohea. Some theories suggest an auto-immune mechanism, in which the patient’s defense system of antibodies and white blood cells are triggered into damaging the nerve covering or insulation, leading to weakness and abnormal sensation.

For more information, visit the official site of the Guillain-Barré Syndrome Foundation International: www.gbsfi.com.

Throw another pathogen on the barbie.

It’s summer – which means foodborne illness numbers rise. Don’t let yourself or your friends fall victim

Up to 119,000 New Zealanders suffer some form of foodborne illness every year. Almost half of the cases are caused by unsafe food handling in the home.

Summer is the worst time for foodborne illness: barbecues, picnics and long, slow walks to and from the local supermarket to keep the bach or crib stocked up can quickly compromise the standard and safety of the food you eat.

Food can never be 100% safe, but ensuring your food is as safe as possible is one of the best things you can do to protect and preserve your health – especially if you are preparing food for the vulnerable – the old, the very young, the pregnant and anyone whose immune system is compromised. Foodborne illness can be serious for anyone but particularly for those in these categories.

Pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella and Campylobacter can quickly ruin your summer holiday because all they need is warmth, moisture and time to multiply to dangerous levels on your food.

Remember the 4Cs

When you’re around food this summer remember the 4Cs: clean, cook, cover, chill. Wash your hands before and while you’re preparing food (especially raw meat and poultry) and after going to the toilet, changing nappies, touching pets or farm animals, and gardening.

If you’re having a barbecue the greatest risk to food safety comes from raw or undercooked meat and from cross-contamination – storing or preparing cooked meat next to raw meat or ready-to-eat foods, such as salads.

Raw meat can contain pathogens that are killed off during the cooking process. However, if it touches or drips on to food that is already cooked or ready-to-eat such as hams and salads, those pathogens can be quickly transferred. They can also be transferred via your hands, chopping board, knife or tongs – so make sure all of these are kept clean.

Some food safety points to remember as you fire up the barbie:

• defrost any frozen foods thoroughly before you cook them or at least ensure that they are cooked right through before serving

• don’t place or prepare raw meat next to cooked or partially cooked meat or other ready-to-eat foods

• cook minced meat burgers and sausages thoroughly (right through to the centre) and cook poultry until the juices run clear

• turn the food regularly so that it cooks evenly

• if you’re expecting lots of guests, consider cooking the food in a conventional oven first then finishing it off on the barbecue

• before you serve it, ensure the centre of the meat is piping hot – don’t assume that if it’s charred on the outside it will be cooked thoroughly on the inside.

Warm weather woes

Buying, transporting and storing food in the summer can also present its fair share of problems. Warm weather is great for bacteria – the warmer it is, the faster they grow. The general rule is: hot foods must be kept hot and chilled foods kept cold until you’re ready to eat them.

If you’re stopping off for a beer, a coffee or a quick swim on your way back from the supermarket, don’t let frozen or chilled food sit around in your car: take a chilly bag or bin and an icepack with you to store them.

Pack raw meat and poultry in separate bags to prevent their juices from dripping on to other foods.

Put chilled and frozen foods in your fridge or freezer as soon as you get them home. Especially:

• any food containing cream – such as trifle, cream cakes or desserts

• meat and poultry

• any food that contains raw eggs such as mayonnaise.

If you’ve spent the day fishing or gathering kaimoana, take extra care when transporting your catch: use a clean chilly bin with fresh, clean icepacks. Shellfish must be kept wet at a steady temperature of 5-7°C. Discard any shellfish that are dead and gaping (ie: they won’t close by themselves when tapped).

Picnic planners

A chilly bag or bin is also a must-have if you’re planning a picnic. Wait until you’re about to set off before transferring your picnic food from the fridge to the chilly bin – and keep it in there with the lid closed until you’re ready to eat it.

Use separate bags or bins for hot and cold foods.

When eating outdoors, keep your food covered to prevent contamination from insects, birds and pets.

Give yourself a grilling with our summer barbecue quiz

It’s important to understand what causes foodborne illness and the steps you can take to minimise your chances of suffering from it. Try our light-hearted quiz to test your food safety knowledge.

1. You’ve been standing over a hot barbecue for an hour and your guests are beginning to get hungry. You’re about to serve up the first of the burgers but notice they’re still pink in the middle. Do you:

a. Serve them anyway. Your guests are unlikely to notice as they’re so hungry.

b. Give them to the dog.

c. Keep the burgers on the barbecue and continue cooking until they’re piping hot and the juices run clear.

Answer: C.Your guests would much prefer another handful of peanuts to a bout of foodborne illness.

2. The barbecue is going well and the guests are calling for more food. You want to start cooking the chicken but there’s no room on the grill. Do you:

a. Squash everything up so there’s room for a couple of chicken pieces next to those burgers that are ready to eat – it’ll all get cooked in the end.

b. Wait until the existing food has been cooked through and taken off the barbecue before adding any more raw meat.

c. Shout “grub’s up” and just hope your guests won’t mind a little raw chicken juice with their burger.

Answer: B. Cross-contamination of cooked and ready-to-eat or raw foods is a sure pathway for foodborne illnesses. Don’t let raw meat sit next to cooked – or partially cooked – meat on the barbecue.

3. The barbecue’s gone well and you want to bring out that fantastic trifle you made earlier. You open the fridge to find that raw chicken has been stored on the shelf above the trifle. You can’t be sure but it’s likely that juices from the meat may have dripped on your dessert. Do you:

a. Make a mental note to add a little more sherry to each helping. Alcohol kills bugs, doesn’t it?

b. Take the trifle out of the fridge and store it on the bench instead.

c. Chalk it up to experience, throw the trifle away and opt for the ice cream in the deep freeze.

Answer: C. Raw meat should always be stored covered and on a plate to prevent any drips, and preferably on the bottom shelf of your fridge. Dripping blood from raw meat can contaminate other foods.

4. You’ve been to the supermarket and stocked up with provisions for the weekend but it’s a hot day and on your way back you pass your favourite bar. Do you:

a. Head home first to pack away all your chilled or frozen foods and make a mental note to take a chilly bin when you next go to the supermarket.

b. Leave the food in the car – you’re only going to have a quick one.

c. Find a shady place to park so you can sup away until closing time.

Answer: A. If your trip back from the supermarket is likely to take more than 30 minutes, pack your chilled and frozen purchases in a chilly bag or bin with an icepack. Don’t leave food in a hot car – perfect conditions for growing bacteria.

5. The day looks set to be perfect for a picnic. Do you:

a. Throw all the food into a carrier bag and round up the kids: you want to get out and enjoy the day as soon as you can.

b. Prepare the dishes, cover and store them in your fridge until you’re about to leave, then transfer the food and a couple of icepacks to a chilly bin.

c. Get all the food ready and stack it up on the kitchen bench while you head off to find the suntan lotion.

Answer: B. Wait until you’re about to set off before transferring your picnic food from fridge to chilly bin – and keep it there until you’re ready to eat it. Use separate bags or bins for hot and cold dishes.

6. You arrive at your picnic spot and arrange all the dishes on the fold-out table. Then someone suggests a quick swim. Do you:

a. Whip out your towel shouting: “Last one in the water’s a sissy”.

b. Make a point of covering any perishable foods then head for the waves.

c. Politely suggest you eat first and swim later.

Answer: C. Bacteria needs warmth, moisture and time to grow and multiply to dangerous levels. Keep your picnic food in the chilly bin until you’re ready to eat and once you’ve got it out, keep it covered.

7. You’ve been out gathering kaimoana and you’ve landed quite a catch. Now you’ve got to get it back to the bach. Do you:

a. Rustle up a couple of old plastic bags from the car boot and fill them to bursting point.

b. Put them in a clean chilly bin and throw in a couple of icepacks for good measure you’ve quite a drive and you want them to stay fresh.

c. Leave them to dry off naturally in the sun while you clean up the boat.

Answer: B. Use a clean chilly bin with fresh, clean icepacks. Shellfish must be kept wet at a steady temperature of 5-7°C. Discard any shellfish that are dead and gaping (ie: they won’t close by themselves when tapped).

Have a great foodsafe summer

For more information on food safety, visit the New Zealand Food Safety Authority website: www.nzfsa.govt.nz or The Foodsafe Partnership website at www.foodsafe.org.nz.

IN FOCUS An occasional roundup of NZFSA meetings, greetings and events.

Minister supports iodine survey

Food Safety Minister Annette King, left in the picture, has her iodine levels tested as she lends support to initiatives to help increase the public’s awareness of iodine deficiency among New Zealanders.

The minister underwent an ultrasonography of her thyroid gland on board the Thyromobile – a customised bus that toured New Zealand last year surveying iodine levels among pregnant women.

Iodine deficiency disorders have begun to resurface in New Zealand after an absence of 60 years. They can cause tiredness, lethargy and goitres, and have been linked to miscarriages and low IQ scores in young children.

Jenny Reid, NZFSA’s Assistant Director of Food Standards, says the survey is expected to reinforce the message that there are generally low levels of iodine, not just among pregnant women but in New Zealand’s general population.

“New Zealand soils are naturally low in iodine and NZFSA’s Total Diet Survey findings showed that the iodine content of the New Zealand food supply continues to drop,” she says.

“The low iodine content of soils combined with a reduced use of iodised salt and reduced iodine content of milk and dairy products from changes in farm practices has resulted in a significant proportion of the population, both adults and children, who are now considered iodine deficient. The most vunerable population groups are pregnant women, infants and young children.

University of Otago researcher Amy Pettigrew and a colleague travelled across New Zealand to scan the thyroid glands and hormone levels of pregnant women. Recommendations from the survey will go to the Ministry of Health in March.

Ms Reid says it is clear that a strategy is needed to improve the iodine status of New Zealanders. NZFSA and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) are considering several options, including the mandatory iodine fortification of some foods.

“NZFSA favours mandatory fortification,” says Ms Reid, though more research first needs to be done.

Umu Pasifika comes to Porirua

Winnie Laban, Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, pictured above right, joined with members of NZFSA’s Umu Pasifika development team in December to launch food safety resources in Porirua. The team met with members of the Pacific Island community who had helped with research into the project. “We wanted to thank them for their input and celebrate with them the results of their efforts,” says NZFSA’s project manager Philippa Ross- James. Umu Pasifika – Food Safety for Pacific Peoples aims to provide an awareness of food safety as well as guidance on handling food in the home and when catering for a large community or social functions. The book is written in English with key messages translated into Samoan, Tongan, Cook Island Maori and Nuiean. For copies of the booklet and more information call 0800 NZFSA1 (0800 693 721).

Sally takes aim

NZFSA’s NZ Standards Programme Manager Sally Johnston was blown away by the fund-raising efforts of NZFSA colleagues who have been supporting her aim to represent New Zealand in the womens’ smallbore shooting team in the upcoming Commonweath Games to be held in Melbourne in March.

A hangi, right, was held in Trentham (Upper Hutt) in December which, with various auctions and raffles managed to raise $2000.

At the time Food Focus went to press Sally was still waiting to find out if she’s been selected. She told us: “It’s been a closely fought selection series, however I’m quietly confident that I will be selected and I’m looking forward to getting out there and giving it my all in pursuit of gold.”

Japanese visit

Researchers for the Japan Food Safety Commission visited NZFSA in December to find out how New Zealand handles food safety events and emergencies, including recalls. Much of the discussion focused on NZFSA’s approach to issues as a risk manager, with resources targeted accordingly – something of particular interest to the visitors.

Going, going, gone – NZFSA staff lose their hair to charity

NZFSA executive director Andrew McKenzie, and his executive assistant Gill Wilson, took up the challenge thrown down by the Child Cancer Foundation in December by shaving their heads to raise money for research into the disease.

Cancer is the most common cause of death among New Zealand children, after accidents. Though survival rates for some childhood cancers are now around 80% (90%+ for some leukaemias) the Child Cancer Foundation relies on public donations to fund its efforts to find a cure.

In December it held a public ‘funrazor’ at Wellington’s Midland Park and invited senior executives in government and industry to seek sponsorship and get their hair cut for free.

Andrew McKenzie told Food Focus:

“The idea struck a chord with me. It reminded me of a really good mate of mine who had a son at the same time as I did. My son is now 22, and his son only made it to the age of two. To me it’s a really good cause.”

Though he says that men who have shaved heads don’t really stand out, for women it’s a far bigger undertaking and he was amazed that his executive assistant Gill Wilson decided to join him on the day.

Says Gill, a former nurse: “Children who lose their hair through cancer treatments have no choice in the matter. Here was a chance for us, in a small way, to experience some of what they go through when that happens, and raise money for them at the same time.” Gill says that her shorn locks have drawn countless comments from onlookers. “I’ve been jeered and shouted at, laughed at, stared at and pitied. It gave me a good insight into what cancer victims have to deal with – it’s very sad.”

Now that the initial shock has worn off, both Gill and Andrew are happy with their new look – and pleased to discover that staff had sponsored their efforts to the tune of almost $800.

The money will be used to buy four support packs for children and their families which they can use to buy emergency supplies of clothes, toiletries, food and accommodation.

Bob Knighton from the Child Cancer Foundation told them: “Your effort in getting sponsorship and sacrificing your hair has made a tremendous difference to families.”

You gotta hand it to ’em!

A pilot campaign promoting hand hygiene at an Auckland primary school to combat foodborne illness has proven so successful that plans are afoot to offer the programme to schools across the country

Hand hygiene among a group of school students showed a marked and continuing improvement after they took part in a pilot handwashing campaign run by NZFSA and the New Zealand Foodsafe Partnership aimed at reducing the incidence of foodborne illness.

The proportion of students who washed their hands after visiting the toilet rose from 66% before the campaign to 94% afterwards and the numbers of students who used soap as part of their hand hygiene practices doubled to 80%.

Before the campaign around half of all students did not dry their hands after washing them compared with just over 88% (more boys than girls) afterwards.

Greg Simmons, Auckland Regional Public Health Service’s medical officer of health has been buoyed by the results. He told Food Focus: “Hand hygiene is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce foodborne illness in the community. New Zealand can’t afford not to educate its children about hand hygiene”

Other key findings among students:

• boys showed a more marked improvement in their hand hygiene habits as 40% of them and 16% of girls took to washing their hands after visiting the toilet in the wake of the campaign

• the median time that students spent washing their hands increased from five seconds to 20

• overall, the proportion of students drying their hands increased by 41% to 89%. (Drying is important because hands washed but not dried transfer bacteria more effectively than hands not washed at all.)

Teaching resources

The pilot was a Foodsafe Partnership initiative and was organised and developed with the help of Yvonne Townsend, a teacher at Lynfield College, Auckland, who has spent the past year on a teacher fellowship from the Royal Society of New Zealand, working alongside Dr Simmons. It was launched at New Windsor School, a decile 5 Auckland health-promoting primary school, in August 2005. With help from NZFSA Communications Advisor, Fran Lovell, Yvonne developed a mixture of new teaching resources aimed at year 1-6 students which fitted into the health and physical education curriculum and health-promoting schools programme. These included hand puppets, hand hygiene self-assessment checklists, homework and classroom-based activities, posters, stamps, poster competitions and word puzzles.

Yvonne told Food Focus: “We carried out a survey of students’ hand hygiene behaviour three weeks after the campaign and found a marked change.

“Students were able to recall what they’d learned and were obviously putting it to good practice. A second survey of hand hygiene was done at the end of last year, three months after the campaign had run. This showed no decay in the proportion of students washing and drying there hands over time.”

Parents lend support

Parents were also able to lend their support to the programme. A question-and-answer session was held at the school at the start of the campaign, along with a presentation outlining its purpose and the importance of hand hygiene and food safety in general. Students’ families were surveyed for their impressions of the campaign.

Key findings from parents after the campaign included:

• 97% said their children had talked to them about hand hygiene during the week of the campaign

• 84% said that they noticed a difference in their child’s hand hygiene behaviour at home after the first day of the campaign

• 91% reported that their children had demonstrated how they washed and dried their hands

• 80% reported that, as a family, they have a better awareness of the importance of hand hygiene as a direct result of the campaign.

Says Dr Simmons: “Clean hands are key to reducing the country’s high levels of foodborne illness and good hand hygiene not only reduces the transmission of infection form person to person but is also a crucial prerequisite to food safety.

“Hand hygiene can also help reduce skin infections as well as costs to society by avoiding hospital admissions for a range of infectious diseases. Where effective hand hygiene programmes have been introduced into schools in the past, there has been a reduction in gastrointestinal illness as well as respiratory viral infections, such as colds and influenza.

School resources

“The promotion of hand hygiene policies and facilities in schools has also been identified as a key theme for work by the New Zealand Foodsafe Partnership in 2005-6. In the current climate, with the threat of an influenza pandemic looming, there is no better time to reconsider the importance of hand hygiene as a public health measure.”

Results of the campaign are yet to be published but it is proposed that a more streamlined set of school resources are developed which will be made available to as many schools as possible by 2008.

Animal Status Declaration rolls out

A new, easy to understand Animal Status Declaration (ASD) system introduced in October 2 2005 became mandatory on January 1 this year.

The new ASD transfers key information about an animal or group of animals that are being transferred from one person in charge to the next, which will aid animal husbandry decisions and meat processors in an effective and cost-efficient way.

The ASD accompanies all movements of sheep, goats, cattle (except bobby calves when they are sent directly for processing), deer, alpacas, llamas, ostriches and emus. It is also used for horses, though only when they are sent for processing.

The new system has been designed by a joint industry-government ASD planning group made up of all New Zealand’s major farming, meat processing, stock yard and transport interests as well as NZFSA regulators and the Animal Health Board.

A vital component

NZFSA Director (Market Access), Tony Zohrab, said the form is a “vital component of the market eligibility system that underpins the Government’s ability to sign export certificates”.

For processors, the information on the ASD is vital for guiding ante-mortem and post-mortem examination and for determining export eligibility and certification.

The form provides key information on issues including: Tb questions (required by the Animal Health Board); food safety questions (required by NZFSA); and market access questions (to enable NZFSA to provide export certification to overseas markets).

Standardised form

Information supplied about groups of farm animals includes the history of the animals and whether they are subject to veterinary medicine withholding periods.

The new form, guidelines and a fact sheet are also available at: www.nzfsa.govt.nz/animalproducts/publications/forms/statements-declarations/asd/index.htm.

Canadian BSE: a story of success

Sandra Lavigne, Executive Director of Public Affairs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was a key speaker at the NZFSA conference last year where she recounted the story of BSE in Canada.

Sandra Lavigne, pictured, executive director of public affairs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) was enjoying a leisurely Sunday breakfast when she got the call that anyone in her position would surely dread: confirmation that a sick cow had tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).

“It completely changed the dynamics of the Canadian economy,” recalls Ms Lavigne, who went on to manage the communications for the whole BSE outbreak in Canada. That’s not a line that any spin-doctor could sexy up. In short, it decimated Canada’s export meat trade to the point where even today, more than two years after the first case was discovered, some export markets are still closed.

“Previously Canada had enjoyed BSE-free status. Now suddenly we were a country with BSE,” she says. Almost immediately the United States closed its borders to Canadian beef, followed soon after by Japan, South Korea and Australia – to name just a few.

$1.6 billion compensation

It was to be 26 months before the first truck, carrying live Canadian cattle from Elmwood, Ontario, would again cross the US border into upstate New York. During that time the price of a cow plummeted from CD$1,300 to just $15; a mass slaughter of 620,000 cattle was held to reduce the size of the national herd and prevent further damage to the industry and the federal government paid out more than $1.6 billion in aid and compensation to beleaguered cattle farmers.

Within two months that single outbreak in May 2003 had cost the Canadian economy $2 billion in lost export earnings together with an estimated 5,000 jobs – and it continues to have major effects on the Canadian beef industry even today.

There have since been two other cases of BSE in Canada. Both were found in January 2005, though their discovery wreaked nothing like the economic havoc of the first.

And the reason for that must go in part to the communications team, headed by Ms Lavigne, and all those who played a key role in steering the Canadian public and the beef industry through the initial tumultuous weeks.

Crisis communications

In October 2005 Ms Lavigne was invited to speak at NZFSA’s annual conference, on risk and crisis communications, and to take conference delegates on a step-by-step journey through Canada’s response to BSE. It does not make for light bedtime reading, though it does have a (reasonably) happy ending.

Within hours of receiving confirmation of the sobering BSE diagnosis from British experts, Canada’s emergency operations centre was activated and Ms Lavigne and her staff kicked their crisis communications plan into high gear.

Key spokespeople were identified, a news conference and technical briefing were held to explain scientific issues and designated spokespeople were appointed to respond to media calls. Key stakeholders were kept informed throughout the crisis with daily calls and updates to the provinces and industry as well as Canadian missions abroad, US officials and the World Organisation for Animal Health.

Daily technical briefings, with the aid of lots of visuals, were held to help de-mystify the science surrounding the BSE investigation. “It’s crucial that the media has what it needs to tell the right story,” says Ms Lavigne. Throughout the whole event messages were constantly coordinated between HQ and regional spokespeople, among federal and provincial governments and industry.

Recovery phase

The plan was to see them through the initial eight weeks as the crisis unfolded, eventually diminished and, finally, went into recovery phase – which is where it’s still at today.

In the first three weeks of the crisis 14 media advisories and press releases were issued, 26 speeches were made, 13 sets of frequently asked questions and answers were prepared, along with seven fact sheets. Media calls numbered close on 2000 and the Canadian government’s 0900 helpline logged 2,379 lines of enquiry. There were more than 40,000 hits to the CFIA’s website.

Ms Lavigne told conference delegates that the most important aspects of any crisis communications plan are:

• to quickly gather information and assess the situation

• understand the policy or programme response

• create a communications plan and identify the communications team

• inform key stakeholders

• conduct public opinion research

• develop key messages.

Explain your decisions

“Be proactive,” says Ms Lavigne. “Communicate early and often. Drive the communications, don’t just react. Let the media help you get the message out and be transparent – explain the nature of the problem and the threat it poses, even when you do not have the solutions.

“Responses can change as the situation evolves. Therefore it’s important that you explain the process and rationale for decisions. Identify a strong and credible spokesperson and prepare the message of the day and stay on that message – even when the news is bad.

“Continue to implement your plan and stay out in front of the issues. Ensure your organisation is positioned to sustain crisis management, and assess public reaction through media analysis and polling, and adjust the messaging if required.

Regular updates

“As the crisis diminishes, slow the frequency of communications, but continue regular updates; take action to respond to longer-term dimensions of the crisis, such as policy decisions. Involve other parties who can help the move to recovery, and communicate any new developments immediately.”

When it comes to the recovery phase, Ms Lavigne says it’s important to ensure that recovery is not announced prematurely. “Establish realistic expectations of the complexity of the recovery process and be sensitive to those directly involved once the public pressure eases.”

Throughout the BSE crisis, the communication plan was prepared in the context of an integrated risk-analysis framework. It was dependent on a cohesive team approach and consistent messages from all participants. It was a strategy that worked. The Western Producer newspaper said the CFIA had produced a “no-holds-barred best BSE Plan” and that there was “much to be reassured about how Canada is handling BSE”.

Confidence remains high

The Canadian public thought so too. Confidence in eating Canadian beef has remained consistently high throughout all cases of BSE (May 2003 – May 2005) at 80% to 90% and beef eating and purchasing habits did not change, even after the first case of BSE.

So was it all worth it? Could the CFIA be accused of going over the top as the UK’s Food Standard’s Agency was by some detractors at the height of the Sudan Para Red dye scare earlier this year?

“Who can say?” reflects Ms Lavigne. “We received a lot of calls from the public and hits to our website as the situation unfolded, yet our polls show that consumption of Canadian beef remained consistently high throughout the crisis.”

Latest polls show that Canadians remain split on whether banning beef products in animal feed or testing all cattle for BSE is the best method of protecting people from BSE in the future.

An excellent job

However, trust and confidence in the CFIA to keep food safe are now higher than before the first Canadian case of BSE (83%). The same percentage also agree that those responsible for food safety in Canada are “doing an excellent job”, and 72% have trust and confidence in the federal government’s handling of the issue, a figure that remains largely unchanged from when the crisis was at its height.

Copies of Sandra Lavigne’s presentation to the NZFSA conference can be downloaded from NZFSA’s website: www.nzfsa.govt.nz. The CFIA website can be found at: www.inspection.gc.ca.

*As Food Focus went to press, news had just come through about a forth cow in Canada that had tested positive for BSE. CFIA stated on its website that the animal was a six-year-old cross-bred cow born and raised in Alberta. No part of the animal entered the human food or animal feed systems. It added: “This detection is consistent with a low level of disease and does not indicate an increased risk of BSE in Canada.”

DIRECTORY

APPROVALS and ACVM GROUP

Develops, implements and reviews standards relating to agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines; and maximum residue limits. Also responsible for all approvals under the Animal Products Act, the Food Act, the Wine Act and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, as well as for the associated systems and processes.

Director Debbie Morris, 04 463 2541

Assistant Director, Approvals (all approvals under NZFSA legislation) John Bongiovanni, 04 463 2618

Setting of MRLs, ACVM and Approvals Standards Chris Boland, 04 463 2537

Approvals (RMPs, WSMPs, etc) under the Animal Products and Wine acts (including dairy approvals) Peter Fairless, 04 463 2624

Technical assessment of veterinary medicine and plant compound approvals Warren Hughes, 04 463 2560

Approvals’ queries and complaints, class determinations, import approvals under the ACVM and Food acts Maree Zinzley, 04 463 2564

COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP

Ensures that NZFSA communicates and consults effectively with all stakeholders and meets their needs for timely, accurate and relevant information.

Director Sandra Daly, 04 463 2503

Media liaison, internal/external corporate communications Gary Bowering, 04 463 2532

4degreesC Philippa Ross-James, 04 463 2552

Food safety enquiries Rebecca Martin, 04 463 3400

Food Focus magazine Diane Robinson, 04 463 2528

Information management Ashley Mudford, 04 463 2605

COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION GROUP

Ensures that standards are enforced. It provides evidence to demonstrate that actual conformance with standards meets regulatory accountabilities, provides justification for export market assurances and undertakes investigations and prosecutions where necessary.

Director Geoff Allen, 04 463 2518

All enquiries Susanna Barris, 04 463 2517

VERIFICATION AGENCY

Verifies that food safety programmes are adhered to at premises where meat, seafood and other animal products are processed. Veterinarians inspect animals, ensure animal welfare protocols are followed and provide export certification to the products.

Director Steve Gilbert, 04 463 2520

Technical Manager Chris Mawson, 04 463 2617

Operations Manager Brian Finlayson, 04 463 2691

Regional offices:

Auckland Peter Brown, 09 356 9763

Waikato Stephen Thomas, 07 856 1818

Bay of Plenty Lynne Clay, 07 572 2208

Hawkes Bay Brendan Vale, 06 870 6786

Wanganui/Taranaki Murray Clay, 06 348 7390

Wellington/Marlborough Brian Roughan, 03 577 5752

Canterbury Richard Wild, 03 358 1702

South Canterbury/Otago Mark Neilson, 03 477 8458

Southland Rodney Walker, 0274 960 774

EXPORT STANDARDS GROUP

Develop, implement, evaluate and review export standards for food and food-related products. Also administers relevant export components of the Animal Products and Wine acts, manages export programmes that are not covered by legislation and all official assurances given for New Zealand food and food-related exports.

Director Carol Barnao, 04 463 2652

Regulated programmes for contaminants and residues Mike Clear, 04 463 2619

Laboratory Approval Scheme (meat and poultry industry and seafood), National Microbiological Database (meat and poultry industry), E-Coli 0157:H7 microbiology programme (meat industry) Gail Mustor, 04 463 2620

Dairy export verification Diane Burchell, 04 463 2546

Official assurances/certification: dairy, IMA, organics Forrest Evans, 09 306 6254

Export standards, dairy IMA regulatory programme, dairy product registration certificates Ann Hayman, 04 463 2674

Pesticide maximum residue limits, pesticide use on exported plant crops, international pesticide regulation and Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues David Lunn, 04 463 2654

Export systems and standards, plant products and processed foods (excluding animal products), organics Kay Shapland, 04 463 2655

Market Access Director Tony Zohrab, 04 463 2600

Deputy director Bill Jolly, 04 463 2621

Middle East, Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore) Peter Gollan, 04 463 2614

US, Canada, Mexico John Lee, 04 463 2611

South and Central America, the Caribbean Chris Mawson, 04 463 2617

European Union, wider Europe and Commonweath Independent Societies Phil Ward, 07 552 0965

North Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong)

Australia, Pacific Islands (including French Territories) Neil McLeod, 04 463 2613

Africa, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Maldives, British Indian Ocean Territory Antonia Aloe, 04 463 2657

Publications, E-Cert official assurances Fenella Bovett, 04 463 2615

NEW ZEALAND STANDARDS GROUP

Develops, implements, evaluates and reviews safety and suitability standards for production, processing, importation, transportation, storage and sale of food and food-related products.

Director Tim Knox, 04 463 2651

Food complaints Rebecca Martin, 04 463 3400

Food service, retail sale and imports Robyn Scully, 04 463 2548

Production and processing, technical standards and systems Julie Humphrey, 04 463 2622

General enquiries Moira Jones, 04 463 2612

JOINT FOOD STANDARDS GROUP

Provides expert technical advice, input and coordination of whole of government comments on the work for New Zealand by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), mainly relating to labelling and composition, and to areas within NZFSA concerning implementation of the joint Food Standards Code and relevant New Zealand regulations.

Director Carole Inkster, 04 463 2505

Health claims, fortification, international regulations, nutrition, dietetics, Codex Jenny Reid, 04 463 2582

Food composition, Food Standards Code; additives, processing aids John van den Beuken, 04 463 2581

FSANZ applications, proposals; Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Clare Chandler, 04463 2650

Nutrition, dietary fibre, food composition database, Vitamin D, fortification, iodine, dietary modeling Joanne Dellow, 04 463 2561

Health claims, Food Standards Code, food additives, contaminants Janet Goodman, 04 463 2575

Food and drug interface; functional foods, dietary supplements, folic acid and folate, food for special medical purposes, allergens Ursula Egan, 04 463 2753

Novel foods, health claims implementation, microbiological food safety, allergens Sally Hasell, 04 463 3412

Fortification, health claims, nutrition Phillippa Hawthorne, 04 463 2514

Nutrition, dietetics, infant feeding, iodine, allergens Charlotte Channer, 04 463 2579

POLICY GROUP

Provides policy advice and legal support for NZFSA’s functions and activities, including the review, development, reform, implementation and evaluation of legislation.

Director/ Domestic Food Review issues Carole Inkster, 04 463 2505

Codex International Standards, WTO SPS issues, OECD issues related to food safety Raj Rajasekar, 04 463 2576

Food-related legislation Bruce Burdon, 04 463 2571

SCIENCE GROUP

Provides scientific inputs into NZFSA standards for food and food-related products, including risk assessments.

Director Steve Hathaway, 06 867 1144

Public health Donald Campbell, 04 463 2649

Microbiology Roger Cook, 04 463 2523

Veterinary public health Bob Jackman, 06 862 6807

Risk assessment Lisa Gallagher, 04 463 2544, Peter van de Logt, 03 527 8385

Epidemiology Terry Ryan, 07 850 2801

Chemicals Paul Dansted, 04 463 2536

Toxicology John Reeve, 04 463 2533

Guest column

Taking a broad view

One of the fundamental flaws in our system of managing food is separation on an issue basis: one agency looks after issues of safety, another nutrition, a third production, and a fourth environmental aspects.

Dr Meriel Watts, NZFSA Consumer Forum member, believes more information about the food we buy is crucial.

Of course, all these things are interconnected and I find it impossible to consider only narrowly defined risk criteria used to determine whether a food is acceptably safe, in isolation from health, social and environmental aspects of food.

Taking a broad view is fundamental to a green perspective on food. It involves considering the sustainability of food production and marketing: what effect the production system is having on our environment (are the soils being improved or eroded) is it adding to the degradation of our waterways and lakes; how much fossil fuel is being chewed up by transporting the food from far-flung countries?

How well are our growers and communities being sustained; how humanely are the livestock being treated (are they given the best opportunities to express their innate behaviours, for example, by free-ranging); and what are the potential impacts of routine prophylactic antibiotic use on disease resistance in humans?

Informed choices

Take labelling for example. When I buy food my first choice is locally grown, fresh organic. Our organic labelling is good, but I need labels to tell me where other food comes from and how it is produced, otherwise I cannot make informed choices.

I want to know whether the eggs are from free-range or battery caged hens, because I believe the battery system to be inhumane and I won’t support it. I want to know whether the peaches are from New Zealand or California because I want to support our local growers (and our national balance of payments). But sometimes I have to spend 10 minutes or more tracking down a grumpy shop assistant to extract the answer.

Of course many people haven’t the tenacity or time, they just assume or hope the peaches are local. That’s unfair to consumers. Labelling should not be just about food safety although that is, of course, important.

Labelling should also give consumers other information to support informed decision-making, and be fair. The labels on the irradiated mangoes imported from Australia do actually say that the mangoes are irradiated as required by the Food Standards Code, but are they really fair to consumers when the print is so miniscule it’s virtually impossible to read without a magnifying glass?

Synergistic effects

A precautionary approach is also fundamental to a green perspective on food. That requires acknowledging that our scientific knowledge of the interactive effects of mixtures of chemicals is limited, and there is uncertainty about the long-term effects of on-going exposures to low doses of mixtures of pesticides as residues in our food, especially those that interact with our endocrine systems.

There is good science that shows some pesticides can have synergistic effects on each other, essentially increasing their toxicity beyond that which is used in setting permissible residue limits. About other mixtures of pesticides there is very little knowledge at all.

Anyone can state that residues that are found in our food are safe or that they are unsafe, but the only fact in the matter is that we simply do not know. The precautionary way forward is to acknowledge the uncertainty and set a policy course for minimising residues in food, rather than simply being satisfied with adhering to legal limits that lack an underpinning scientific certainty of safety.

Health and nutrition

Food is primarily about nutrition and good health. Our food supply must provide us with the best possible nutrition to support the best possible national health.

Currently New Zealand, like so many other countries, is experiencing epidemics of obesity and diabetes because we have taken our eye off the prime function of food – to keep us alive and healthy – in favour of market liberalisation and commercial opportunity at the cost of billions of tax-payer dollars being chewed up by the health system.

At the very least we need our food labelling to assist us to make healthy food choices, not just safe food choices, and a food regulatory system that places good nutrition at the heart of the matter.

Lastly, a green perspective also includes ensuring democracy in decision-making, letting consumers into the process of decision-making about our food supply in a meaningful way.

Each issue our guest columnist gets to air their personal views on a subject close to them. These views do not necessarily represent those of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, but are published here to encourage debate on issues of current interest.

The Domestic Food Review

NZFSA has been consulting on the DFR for more than a year. Feedback has been incorporated into a new document (a position paper) for a final round of public comment.

A series of public workshops are being held around the country to explain and discuss the issues raised in the position paper. You are most welcome to attend any of these.

For more details, and to register your attendance phone 0800 NZFSA1 (0800 693 721) or email info@nzfsa.govt.nz

DATE	DAY	PLACE
20 February	Monday	Auckland
21 February	Tuesday	Hamilton Tauranga
22 February	Wednesday	Palmerston North Napier
23 February	Thursday	Wellington
24 February	Friday	New Plymouth
27 February	Monday	Christchurch Dunedin
28 February	Tuesday	Invercargill
1 March	Wednesday	Nelson

86 Jervois Quay, PO Box 2835, Wellington, New Zealand

Telephone 04 463 2500

Facsimile 04 463 2501

Website: www.nzfsa.govt.nz

Food safety concerns: 0800 NZFSA1 (0800 693 721)

Email: info@nzfsa.govt.nz