Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 329
Appendix G
Analyzing Food Safety Alerts in
European Union Rapid Alerts
Systems for Food and Feed
Ying Zhang, Elizabeth Wells, and Jake Chen
This paper presents an overview of the types of problems different
countries have in meeting import requirements of one of the biggest global
importers: the European Union (EU). This paper uses publicly available
data to identify patterns in the types of problems different countries have
in meeting import requirements; to understand where in the supply chains
the product safety failures occur; to explain the types of threats border
inspectors commonly identify; and to evaluate the types of data that are
most needed for tracing safety trends.
Many countries collect and make public data on their food regulatory
authority’s border rejections, but there is no single international federated
database combining these records. This study uses tracking data from the
European Union Rapid Alert Systems for Food and Feed.
DATA AND METHODS
Data Sources
This paper uses official food safety information from the European
Union Rapid Alert Systems for Food and Feed (EURASFF). EURASEF is
an information sharing framework managed by the European Free Trade
Association in coordination with the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) and the European Commission. Foods and animal feeds that
pose risk to human health requiring official action, “such as withhold-
ing, recalling, seizure or rejection of the products concerned” (Europa,
2011), are reported to EURASFF under article 50 of Regulation (EC) No.
329
OCR for page 330
330 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
178/2002.1 Table G-1 presents the inclusion criteria for records included
in this paper’s analysis.
The EURSAFF database presents the number of recalls and safety
notifications recorded at their ports. This paper attempts to put these raw
numbers in a context that accounts for the amount of trade the exporting
country does with the EU. Therefore, we have retrieved trade data from
Eurostat external trade statistics for food (European Commission, 2011),
which classifies traded products using the WTO’s Harmonized System
Codes. Table G-2 presents the criteria used to draw data from Eurostat,
and lists the Harmonized System Codes we included.
Coding Metrics
Each safety alert in the database contains a short description of the
product, origin countries, transit countries and the reason for the notifi-
cation. This study used a coding system to categorize the type of threat
reported and the place on the supply chain where it might have occurred.
Briefly, the risk code refers to the reason that the product was rejected.
This suspected risk can be microbial, chemical, physical, mycotoxins, or
problems in processing or labeling. There is also another category that was
used for rejections that resisted classification, or unclear records. Table G-3
describes the risk codes, labeled A-Y.
The supply chain categorizes the point at which the product became
unsuitable for human consumption. This may have occurred at any point
between the farm and the port. In most cases it is not explicit where on the
supply chain contamination occurred, these entries are coded as 0. Table G-4
shows how the coder combined risk codes and supply chain codes.
Limitations
The quality of the publicly available data is one major limitation of this
study. Also, the reasons for the safety alert and recall are recorded in free
text; there is no standard language used for reporting in these databases.
Some notes are ambiguous or confusing. For example, “unauthorized us-
age” of certain ingredients in food production can be interpreted as an
administrative issue when a novel food ingredient was introduced without
approval. It might also be a violation of using prohibited chemicals as food
additives or dyes. The coding matrix also has limitations. Some cases can
1 Laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the Euro-
pean Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Regula-
tion (EC) No. 178/2002, art. 50. The European Parliament and the Council of Europe (28
January 2002).
OCR for page 331
331
APPENDIX G
TABLE G-1
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Data Collection
EURASFF
Inclusion criteria
1. Notified between January 2006 and June 2011
2. Search type is limited to food only
3. Reported by any EU member country
Exclusion Criteria
Food produced in EU member countries
TABLE G-2
Inclusion Criteria Trade Statistics
Inclusion criteria
1. Reporter countries are limited to EU 27 members
2. Trade partners are limited to 60 countries from which more than 10 food safety alerts
were generated between 2006 and 2010
3. Product types are limited to HTS code 1-23
be given more than one code. For instance, “bad preservation state” or
“bad hygienic state” can be interpreted as a processing problem (code F)
when the food product is not stored or transported properly; it could also
be coded as a physical defect (code E).
This analysis was also held back by the lack of a comprehensive up-
to-date master list for chemicals prohibited in food and food packaging,
especially food dyes and additives. It is not always clear if a consignment
was problematic because the chemicals detected were illegal (code C) or in
violation of threshold levels (code D). Therefore, when analyzing the coding
results, we do not over-interpret codes that might overlap.
Findings
As the world biggest food importer and exporter (European Commis-
sion, 2010), the European Union has a well-developed and rigorous food
safety alert reporting and information sharing system. EURASFF 2010
records identified 2,878 risky food products in 2010, half of them coming
from outside the EU.
OCR for page 332
TABLE G-3
332
Risk Content Code
TABLE G-3 Risk Content Code
Risk/Content Code Description Example
A Microbial pathogen identified in the product Escherichia coli (940 CFU/100g) in clams
Microbial Contamination
(Tapes decussatus) from Tunisia
B Mycotoxin (a toxin produced by pathogenic Aflatoxins (B1 < 0.1; Tot. < 0.1 / B1 < 0.1; Tot. < 0.1 /
Mycotoxin Contamination
microbes) identified in the product B1 = 10.0; Tot. = 10.9 ųg/kg - ppb) in peanuts in shell
from China
C Chemical prohibited in the reporting country or Prohibited substance metronidazole (0.2 ųg/kg—ppb)
Chemical Contamination
region identified in a product in honey from China
(Absolutely Prohibited)
D Chemical over the maximum residue level of the Zinc (14.5 mg/l) in cane vinegar from Senegal
Chemical Contamination
reporting country or region standards identified
(Over Threshold)
in a product
E Contamination that can be identified through Dried peas from Ukraine infested with insects
Physical Contamination
organoleptic inspection (Bruchus Pisorum)
F Inadequate or inappropriate processing Bad temperature control—rupture of the cold chain—
Processing
of frozen poultry meat from Brazil
G Ingredients not labeled or labeled incorrectly Absence of labeling on linoleic acid soft capsules
Labeling
from China
H Absent, improper, fraudulent, or expired documents Absence of health certificate(s) for corned beef
Administrative Reason
according to the reporting country standards from Brazil
X Risk not clearly defined Su ocation risk as a result of the consumption of
Other
mini cup jelly from Taiwan
Y Issues that are not concerns of the United States Unauthorized genetically modified (presence of
Issues Not Interested
(e.g., genetically modified food, irradiation, etc.) GM rice BT 63) rice spaghetti from China
OCR for page 333
TABLE G-4
Coding Metrics Combining Risk Content Codes with Supply Chain Codes
Supply Chain
Raw Material Manufacturing Packaging Transportation Market Others
Risk/Content 1 2 3 4 5 0
A A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A0
Microbes
B B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B0
Mycotoxin
C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C0
Chemical
(Absolutely Prohibited)
D D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D0
Chemical
(Over Threshold)
E E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E0
Physical
F F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F0
Processing
G G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G0
Labeling
H H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H0
Administrative Reason
X X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X0
Others
Y Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y0
Issues Not Interested
333
OCR for page 334
334 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
Figure G-1 shows the 15 countries whose food exports to the EU
triggered official actions. between 2006 and 2010. However, when the cu-
mulative number of safety alerts is divided by the cumulative food import
volume, only seven countries—India, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt,
the United States, and Iran—still rank in the top 15 (Figure G-2).
Figures G-3 and G-4 attempt to illustrate the relationship between the
number of safety alerts associated with a country’s exports to the European
Union, the amount of trade the country does with the European Union,
and the country’s wealth. In these graphs the x-axis shows the number of
safety alerts, the y-axis shows food import volume in billions of euros, and
the radius represents the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in U.S.
dollars according to the World Bank (World Bank, 2010), with the excep-
tion of the GDP of Taiwan, which is from the International Monetary Fund
(IMF, 2010).
Figure G-3 shows that China is the subject of many safety alerts and
also does a great deal of trade with the European Union. The United States
is the subject of many food safety alerts, most of them because of novel
food ingredients, unauthorized irradiation, and genetically modified organ-
isms. This is a function of different food standards between the United
States and Europe.
About two-thirds of food safety alerts come from nuts and seeds, fish
and seafood products, and fruits and vegetables (Figure G-5).
Mycotoxin, mainly aflatoxin, contamination is responsible for
the majority of safety alerts among nuts and seed products from India,
Argentina, the United States, Iran, and China (Figure G-6A). For other
food categories, the nature of the risk is more diverse, but certain patterns
can still be observed from some countries. For instance, while fish and sea-
food from Vietnam and China show relatively even distribution in micro-
bial contamination, chemical contamination, and physical contamination,
those from Bangladesh and India are mostly rejected because of prohibited
chemicals (Figure G-6B). In most cases the prohibited chemicals mentioned
were restricted antibiotics, nitrofurans, and cadmium. Among fruits and
vegetables, more than 300 records of aflatoxin contamination on dried figs
accounts for nearly half of all the alerts on Turkish fruits and vegetables,
this pattern does not hold for the other countries with problems exporting
fruits and vegetables (Figure G-6C). India, one of the biggest exporters of
herbs and spices, seems to have aflatoxin contamination as its biggest food
safety issue, while most of the records for Thailand report microbial con-
tamination, mainly salmonella (Figure G-7D).
In Figures G-7A and G-7B, a two-dimension contour plot shows the
interaction between risk and supply chain codes for Morocco and Hong
Kong. The color coding indicates the number of food safety alerts, which
illustrates the unique patterns of food export problems in both countries.
OCR for page 335
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Morocco
Nigeria
Ukraine
Egypt
Brazil
Vietnam
Argentina
Thailand
Iran
India
USA
Turkey
China
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Number of Food Safety Alert Notifications
FIGURE G-1
Number of food safety alert notifications in EURASFF for top 15 origin countries, 2006–2010.
335
OCR for page 336
336
Iran
Ghana
Indonesia
Taiwan
Ecuador
USA
Egypt
Republic of Korea
Senegal
Turkey
Pakistan
Paraguay
Morocco
India
Hong Kong
50 100 150 200 250 1,200 1,400
Number of Food Safety Alert Notifications
FIGURE G-2
Number of food safety alert notifications in EURASFF divided by the value of imported food for top 15 origin countries (in 1,000,000,000
Euro), 2006–2010.
OCR for page 337
1,400
1,200
China
1,000
Saudi Arabia Ukraine
800
Ghana
600
400
Malaysia
Mexico
Food Import Volume in EURO (Billions)
Tunisia
200
Brazil
Canada Thailand Turkey
Japan Nigeria Argentina
United States
Egypt Vietnam Iran India
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
See FIGURE G-4 for detail Number of Food Safety Alert Notifications
FIGURE G-3
Number of food safety alert notifications, food import volume, and GDP of EU food importers.
337
OCR for page 338
338
150
Israel
130
Philippines
Algeria
110
Canada
Dominican Republic
Syria
90
Namibia
Russia
Kenya
70
Peru
Japan
Chile
Lebanon
50
Australia
Nigeria
Georgia
Food Import Volume in EURO (Billions)
Bangladesh
South Africa
30 Croatia
Saudi Arabia
Colombia
Egypt
Costa Rica Indonesia Ghana
10
Ecuador Senegal
Taiwan Morocco
South Korea Pakistan
Hong Kong
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Number of Food Safety Alert Notifications
FIGURE G-4
Number of food safety alert notifications, food import volume, and GDP of EU food importers.
OCR for page 339
Food additives and flavorings
Other food products and mixed
Milk and milk products
Prepared dishes and snacks
Honey and royal jelly
Fat and oil
Cocoa, tea, and co ee
Soups, broths, and sauces
Beverages
Food contact material
Confectionery
Meat
Dietetic foods, food supplements,
and fortified foods
Cereal
Herbs and spices
Fruits and vegetables
Aquatic products
Nuts and seeds
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Number of Food Safety Alert Notifications
FIGURE G-5
339
Number of Food safety alert notifications in EURASFF by food categories, 2006–2010.
OCR for page 340
340
India A Microbes
Argentina B Mycotoxin
USA C Chemical
(Absolutely Prohibited)
Seeds
Nuts and
Iran
D Chemical
China (Over Threshold)
E Physical
Bangladesh
F Processing
Morocco
G Labeling
China
Fish
H Administrative Reason
India
X Others
Vietnam
Y Issues Not Interested
Egypt
India
China
Thailand
Fruits and
Vegetables
Turkey
Peru
China
Turkey
Spices
Thailand
Herbs and
India
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
FIGURE G-6
The composition of health risks of the top four categories in EURASFF, 2006–2010.
OCR for page 341
Hong Kong Morocco
Administration
Number of Food
Safety Alert
Notifications
Labeling
0–10
10–20
Processing
20–30
30–40
Physical 40–50
Chemical
(Over Threshold)
Chemical
(Absolutely Prohibited)
Mycotoxin
Microbes
Market
Market
Packaging
Packaging
Unspecific
Unspecific
Raw Material
Raw Material
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Transportation
Transportation
FIGURES G-7A and G-7B
341
EURASFF food safety alert records for all food categories coded by risk/content and supply chain stage, 2006-2010.
OCR for page 342
342 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
Data for rejections of consignments from Hong Kong shows problems
with chemical contamination introduced in packing. Mostly, this was from
chemicals from the packaging migrating onto the food.
Summary of the Key Findings from EURASFF Data Analysis
1. Countries named in the most food safety alert reports do not show
the highest incidence after adjusting for trade volume.
2. Three categories of food products (nuts and seed products, fish
and seafood products, fruits and vegetables) cause more than two-
thirds of all the food safety reports.
3. Mycotoxin, mainly aflatoxin, contamination is the most commonly
reported problem. It is an issue for both developed and developing
countries.
DISCUSSION
The EURASFF system is operating under the provision of Regulation
(EC) No. 178/2002, in which Article 50 lays down the requirement for
RASFF notification, defining when a notification should be triggered, and
how quickly the information should be reported to the European Union.
Indeed, the RASFF has a standardized format for reporting, a real-time
sharing and communication platform for all the member states, and a wide
variety of data incorporating border rejections, internal communication and
public safety alerts (Europa, 2009). In today’s global supply chains, foods
pass through dozens of countries during production. It is not always clear
what the origin country is. EURASFF documents where the raw materials
come from, and where the product is in transit before entering the Euro-
pean Union, but the data are not consistent.
It is also important to consider the trade volume in assessing trends in
product safety failures. Countries whose products trigger the most safety
alerts do not necessarily have the most problems after adjusting for trade
volume. Therefore different strategies might be taken to reduce rejections
based on the overall amount of trade countries do. The trends identified in
this paper require further analysis, however. The EURASFF database has
24 categories for food products, and these categories do not align with the
WTO Harmonized Codes. It would help if regulatory agencies reported
Harmonized International Commodity Codes for the products they reject.
Understanding the shared and unique patterns each country faces
in exporting food may be useful in planning trainings or other capacity
building projects for these countries. For instance, aflatoxin is an almost
universal problem and might be best solved through global control and
prevention.
OCR for page 343
343
APPENDIX G
More importantly, the enhanced coordination between the European
Union, United States, and other developed countries could improve food
safety worldwide. The European Union has just launched a system-wide
re-evaluation on all approved food additives, colors and sweeteners,2 which
will potentially have great impact on international trade of food products.
It would be helpful for American and European regulators to cooperate on
developing common standards for food additives.
REFERENCES
Europa. 2009. Scope of the RASFF. http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/rasff_scope_
en.htm (accessed December 8, 2011).
———. 2011. Questions and answers on the role and achievements of the rapid alert system for
food and feed. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/729
(accessed December 8, 2011).
European Commission. 2010. Food safety—from the farm to the fork. http://ec.europa.eu/
food/international/trade/index_en.htm (accessed December, 2011).
———. 2011. Eurostat data navigation tree: EU27 trade since 1988 by HS2-HS4 (DS_016894).
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database# (accessed
December 8, 2011).
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2010. Report for selected countries and subjects: Tai-
wan. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2000&
ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=528&s=NGDP_R%2CNGDP_
RPCH%2CNGDP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=64&pr.y=5 (accessed December 8, 2011).
World Bank. 2010. GDP. http://search.worldbank.org/quickview?name=%3Cem
%3EGDP%3C%2Fem%3E+%28current+US%24%29&id=NY.GDP.MKTP.
CD&type=Indicators&cube_no=2&qterm=gdp (accessed December 8, 2011).
2 Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 of 25 March 2010 setting up a programme
for the re-evaluation of approved food additives in accordance with Regulation (EC) No
1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives Text with EEA
relevance. Official Journal L 08, 26/03/2010 P. 0019 – 0027. [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Lex-
UriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:080:0019:01:EN:HTML], retrieved on December 8th,
2011.
OCR for page 344
