Page
SHEACOSafety Health and Environment
Action Committee
Objectives of Consumer Safety News
To help maintain a high awareness of consumer safety issues
amongst managers in our international business
To summarise recent safety problems in consumer products
To remind managers that the best operational strategy is a
preventive approach, known as Quality Assurance
To remind managers of the technical expertise which is available
within Unilever
To encourage sister Companies to share information
Compiled for the business by the Consumer Safety Sub-committee
of SHEACO
Editor: Mrs T M Herd, SEAC Colworth
Assistant Editor: Mrs M Wood, SEAC Colworth
FILLIN "Please start typing here" \* MERGEFORMAT Page
4. Editorial
5. BSE Update
6. Workshop on (microbiological) Risk Assessment within
UnileverSEAC Conference
7. Tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes in ready to-eat-foods:
summary of an FAO/WHO expert consultation8. Biotech Digest
9. Mass Spectrometry in Food Safety Meeting at Colworth
10. World Class Quality rolls out through supply chain
11. Responsible Use of Antibiotics in Food Animal Production
12. Unilever Consumer Safety Incident Birds Eye potato waffles
recalled
14. Hot TopicsInvestigation of Salmonella outbreak reveals
potential for problems
15. BSE Control steps taken by EU, Australia and New Zealand
Levels of dioxins/PCBs in farmed salmon cause UK media concern
16. Elevated levels of the pesticide chlormequat found in fresh
and processed Italian tomatoes
17. Who can help you
Editorial
Happy New Year to all readers of Consumer Safety News.
A newsletter will only be read if it delivers current news items
in a timely manner. Over the past year we have struggled to keep up
with the amount of external (to Unilever) information that is
published by the media. In the past, such information would have
formed the basis of our overview of incidents and summary of news
from far and wide. However, so many people can now access such
information directly via the Internet we no longer feel that we can
add value by repeating these stories a couple of months after they
were real news. We have therefore decided to give our news section
a fresh look. This new hot topics section will only feature items
that are of high concern to Unilever and where we can add
information to the published text. Readers wishing to keep up to
date with the news as it happens should make use of the many food
news feeds now available. Some good examples are:
FSnet this is a free daily email service that is completely
safety focused. To subscribe to FSnet, send mail
to:[email protected], leave subject line blank in the
body of the message, type: subscribe fsnet-L firstname lastname.
Other useful web sites include:
http://www.just-food.comhttp://www.foodnavigator.com
In many cases (as with FSnet) you can request an alert to be
sent directly to your own email account. We are also exploring ways
of making these sources directly accessible from SEAC Online.
CSN will continue to feature original articles and be a forum
for sharing news and best practice in consumer safety within
Unilever. This issue contains a timely update on BSE as the rest of
Europe finally wakes up to the fact that BSE is not just a UK
problem. Cases are continuing to appear in European countries,
followed by the predictable knee-jerk reaction from consumers and
regulators alike. In response, Unilever has recently revised its
guidance on BSE. As before, the aim of such guidance is to ensure
an agreed approach within Unilever and a reminder that Unilever
actions should do nothing to increase consumer anxieties about BSE
because of the uncertainties or lack of knowledge.
Last year Unilever had a total of 6 public recalls. In each case
there will be lessons to be learned and shared but how often have
you been made aware of them? Companies are rarely willing to do
this on a global level and so we are very gratified to be able to
publish the lessons learned following an incident of metal
contamination in a frozen food. My thanks to the Foods QA Group and
Tony Heaney for this valuable contribution.
Dont forget you can access the news weekly on SEAC Online see
http://seac.research.unilever.com
Teresa Herd
Editor:
Additions/amendments to circulation list:
Mrs T Herd
SEAC Enquiry Service
SEAC
Unilever Research Colworth
Unilever Research Colworth
Colworth House
Colworth House
Sharnbrook
Sharnbrook
Bedford MK44 1LQ
Bedford MK44 1LQ
UK
UK
Tel: (44) 1234 222686
Tel: (44) 1234 222700
Fax: (44) 1234 248054
Fax: (44) 1234 248054
Outlook: Herd, Teresa
Outlook: SEAC, Enquiry-Service
Email: [email protected]
Email:[email protected] update
As numbers of cases of BSE in cattle have continued to increase
in Europe, there has been a resurgence of interest in vCJD/BSE both
in the media and in the scientific literature. This has prompted
regulators to impose new restrictions on the industry (see Hot
Topics). A summary has been prepared for SHEACO to outline this new
information and to re-assess the risks to Unilevers operations. The
main points are captured below.
Summary
Since 1996, the awareness of BSE has increased tremendously and
effective measures have been put into place in the beef-chain to
minimise the impact of BSE on public health.
As at December 2000, there have been 87 cases of vCJD in the UK.
This includes a cluster of 5 cases. Statistical analysis shows that
this number of cases in this one area is unlikely to have occurred
by chance. Investigations are focussing on the genetic
susceptibility of the victims and the possibility of a common food
source such as meat. vCJD is still a rare disease, despite the
rising incidence in the UK. Whilst the causative agent is the same
as that which causes BSE in cattle, the route of infection for man
is still unknown.
The BSE epidemic in UK cattle continues to decline. The EU
Scientific Steering Committee has completed a 23 nation geographic
assessment of the likely risks of BSE in the cattle populations.
Overall, the BSE risk has decreased or stabilised since 1996. The
levels of the BSE agent in the beef-chain in EU countries should
decrease still further once the EU decisions on rendering and
specified risk materials (SRMs) are appropriately implemented.
Milk is still regarded as safe, but investigations to remove any
doubt are underway in the EU, especially in the UK.
The source of the BSE epidemic is still unknown. The prion,
which causes BSE in cattle, is different from the prions known to
cause scrapie in sheep. We do not know if BSE occurs naturally in
sheep, nor whether it could have been transferred from cattle to
sheep as a consequence of the BSE epidemic. If BSE is found in
sheep, there will be an immediate 'scare' with damage to the
sheep/lamb industry.
In the light of all the new information, the 'real' safety risks
to consumers through Unilevers operations are likely to remain low
both for Foods and for HPC. However, the 'perceived' risks are
still high and are likely to remain so in the foreseeable future.
'Scares' are likely to arise anytime from anywhere. Unilever still
needs to be concerned about the BSE/vCJD issue. The Business Groups
should now take the lead to ascertain how Unilever should manage
the 'perceived' risks involved.
Unilever BSE guidance
The document Unilever guidelines on BSE is available in the
SHEACO database in Lotus Notes CORP\A1388655.nsf or via the
intranet at http://upn.unilever.com . This replaces the former BSE
policy and implementation guidelines. The SHEACO fact sheet is also
being updated and will be available soon.
Teresa Herd - SEAC Information
Workshop on (microbiological) risk assessment within
Unilever
On 27th of November a workshop on Risk Assessment within
Unilever was organised by the Microbiological Risk Assessment team
based at Colworth House and Vlaardingen. The workshop was attended
by 26 people from the business (incl. Bestfoods and Slimfast) and
research representing twelve countries worldwide.
Aims of this workshop were to introduce participants into risk
assessment within the Unilever business as a standardised approach
to judge the acceptability of risks and above all to discuss its
benefits for Unilevers food and HPC companies. At first the views
on risk analysis from a SEAC perspective were shared with the
participants, whereafter risk assessment in SEAC-Toxicology was
discussed. The third presentation covered views on microbiological
risk assessment (MRA) in SEAC-Microbiology and the project MIRACLE.
Objectives of this project are to create awareness in the business,
to develop MRA expertise and implementation of its knowledge in
relevant expert systems and to influence external MRA developments
relevant to the SEAC Risk Analysis initiative. During the last item
of the workshop various speakers clarified statements of risk
assessment resulting in valuable discussions involving both the
business and research. Detailed information of this workshop can be
obtained from the authors of this article.
Frank Pieterman and Suzanne van Gerwen - SEAC Microbiology
Vlaardingen (on behalf of the MIRACLE project team)
SEAC Conference, 6-10 November
The Unilever Business was invited to attend a week of SEAC
meetings in November, to learn about and to discuss the latest
developments within SEAC.
The SEAC Overview on Monday included our vision for the future,
and detailed the various business support processes and activities,
e.g. the SEAC Enquiry Service, SEAC Support Service and "Pelican" -
a web-based system that will provide a single integrated SEAC
process for formal Unilever safety clearance.
The SHEACO Contaminants Working Party (CWP) was held on Tuesday
and Wednesday.
Topics discussed included the impact of global buying,
regulatory issues, GMOs, corporate relations, management of
incidents, knowledge management, the new SEAC Allergens website and
some exciting HPC product innovation concepts. An extensive poster
session and practical demonstrations gave the opportunity for in
depth discussion of specific topics. There were tours of the
Unipath production facility at Bedford, and of the Colworth
Consumer Science (with a challenging taste panel in the sensory
booths - attempting to spot the difference between ordinary and low
fat-potato crisps) and the Ice Cream Pilot Plant (tasting Magnums
and Soleros!).The SEAC Contaminants Business Review and the SEAC
Microbiology Business Review were held on the Thursday and Friday,
with detailed description and discussion of their respective
programmes. Please contact Peter Brawn and Peter McClure for
details.Approximately 60 representatives from the Unilever and
BestFoods Business attended the meetings and gave very positive
feedback. Planning for next year's meetings has already
started!John Wilkins SEAC ContaminantsTolerance of Listeria
monocytogenes in ready to-eat-foods: summary of an FAO/WHO expert
consultationAs mentioned previously in CSN, project MIRACLE
develops Microbiological Risk Assessment (MRA) for Unilever. MRA
determines risks throughout the food chain using qualitative and
quantitative data. One of the objectives of the MIRACLE project is
to create awareness of MRA to the Unilever business and to keep the
business informed on ongoing developments. Below the current state
of affairs with respect to tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes in
ready-to-eat foods from a regulatory perspective is given. Note:
the observations are provisional and no legal consequences can be
drawn at this point.
The FAO/WHO has prepared a preliminary report on exposure
assessment of L.monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods for the Joint
FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Assessment of Microbiological
Hazards in Foods (Report MRA 00/02). This report refers to a
discussion paper on the management of Listera monocytogenes in
foods (Annex of the Codex report CX/FH 99/10), which concluded on
the basis of a risk assessment that a concentration of L.
monocytogenes ( 100/g at consumption is of low risk to the
consumer. However, some concerns remained within Codex on the
meaning of low risk.
The additional approach in report MRA 00/02 should:
i) give a better quantification of low risks using predicted
levels of exposure to
L. monocytogenes and observed incidence of listeriosis.
ii) provide a specified level of contamination, which represents
an acceptable risk.
iii) evaluate health consequences of a policy that regulates
absence of L. monocytogenes in 25 grams (zero tolerance) compared
to a model which accepts a certain amount of L. monocytogenes in
the products (e.g. 100 CFU/gram).
Several approaches were used to address the risk question. One
approach identified the estimated prevalence of listeriosis in
different nations. Of those nations for which data were available,
Italy, USA, and Australia have 'zero tolerance' policies, and some
other countries tolerate low levels of L. monocytogenes. It was
concluded that 'The data on prevalence of listeriosis do not
provide strong support that a zero tolerance policy provides a
greater level of public health protection than other, less
stringent, regulatory approaches.
Based on an analysis (US data) it was assumed that each consumer
was exposed many times per year to L. monocytogenes with the
majority of doses between 0.01 to 10 CFU per serving (note: 0.01
CFU/serving can be interpreted as 1 L. monocytogenes in 100
servings). Other approaches studied levels of exposure to L.
monocytogenes and related this to the reported number of outbreaks.
A small percentage (0.21%) of the doses were predicted as more than
106/serving. The predicted incidence of exposure to products
heavily contaminated with
L. monocytogenes greatly exceeds the reported incidence of
listeriosis.
As a conclusion it was stated 'In the context of the results and
analyses presented, it appears that whether the regulatory policy
is e.g. 100 CFU/g at the point of eating or 'zero tolerance' is
irrelevant unless the policy can be strictly enforced.'
In the EU a Draft Commission proposal on regulatory controls is
in preparation, also a draft risk assessment has been produced by
the FDA/FSIS and is available for comment at
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/lmrisk.html.
Suzanne van Gerwen and Frank Pieterman - SEAC Microbiology
Vlaardingen (on behalf of the MIRACLE project team)
Biotech Digest
The Biotech Digest is a newsletter produced by Dr. Min-Min Teh,
part of the Foods Regulatory Affairs team at Colworth. This
newsletter is intended as an update on scientific issues in
Genetically Modified (GM) food and related topics. The first issue
was published in November 2000 and focused on GM issues in animal
feed. Articles included are:
Attitudes to GM-fed animal produce in the UK
Reaction of the food industry (to demands for GM free animal
feed)
Is there enough non-GM animal feed?
What's wrong with GM proteins?
'Jumping genes'
EU Novel Feed legislation
Unapproved maize discovered in taco shells
Skylark-ing around (will GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beet reduce
the Skylark population?)
Do GM crops harm butterflies?
The Biotech Digest will be published every two months and is
accessed through the FRESCO website (http://fresco.unilever.com) in
the section "What's new".
Min-Min Teh Regulatory Affairs, ColworthMass Spectrometry in
Food Safety Meeting at Colworth
Over 70 delegates (40 from outside Unilever) attended this
combined British Mass Spectrometry Society, RSC Analytical
Biosciences Group and Society of Chemical Industry meeting at
Colworth on 20th November.
Following a welcome from Prof. Peter Lillford, Colworths Chief
Scientist, Prof. Stephen Barnes of the University of Alabama
(Birmingham, USA), opened the scientific session with an erudite
presentation on the advantages of Liquid Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (LC/MS) for the measurement of isoflavones and other
polyphenols in foods and physiological fluids. His talk was timely,
given the current debate about the advantages and disadvantages of
dietary phytoestrogens, and contained some interesting metabolic
data.
Dr Andy Boseley of Syngenta (ex Zeneca, Jealotts Hill) described
the rapid analysis of agrochemicals in crops by LC/MS. He
demonstrated the reduced sample preparation and faster analysis
time available by using up to date mass spectrometric methods.
Impressive data were presented on the determination of pesticides
and their metabolites using very rapid (often sub-minute)
analytical regimes.
David Wood of SAL Ltd (Manchester) gave a topical (given recent
contamination problems in Belgium) and absorbing presentation on
mass spectrometric determination of dioxins and PCBs in foods.
Davids talk impressed the audience with the challenging nature of
the analyses and the ability of modern high-resolution Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry to meet and surpass the required
detection limits.
After a break for lunch, poster sessions and a manufacturers
exhibition, Dr Thrse McKenna of Micromass UK Ltd. (Manchester)
introduced a new application of MALDI-ToF (matrix-assisted laser
desorption ionisation time-of-flight) mass spectrometry as a rapid
method for speciating and typing micro-organisms. Sophisticated
pattern matching software not only enabled species discrimination,
but also allowed identification of different strains within
species. The methodology was still undergoing development but
preliminary data indicate that it is rapid, robust and
reproducible. The technology has obvious potential in the study of
food pathogens.
The final talk was given by Dr John Lewis of CSL, York and
emphasised the importance of establishing the chemical form of a
mineral toxicant. John gave a useful insight into the power of
hyphenated LC/ICPMS methods for studying cadmium and arsenic
species, and also into Inductively Coupled Plasma -MS analysis of
the products of in vitro systems that simulate the gastrointestinal
system.
We hope to host another food-related MS meeting at Colworth in
2002.
John Wilkins SEAC Contaminants
World Class Quality rolls out through supply chain
Raising standards of quality will improve business performance,
says Markham
A standard has been set for quality and excellence throughout
the whole supply chain and is now being rolled out throughout
Unilever following a conference in the Netherlands in November
2000.
Called the Unilever Quality and Consumer Safety Road Map, this
comprehensive manual of quality assurance is available on the
intranet at http://uqcsrm.unilever.com. The 'road map' identifies
three levels of development for quality management systems: core or
minimum standards that all business should have in place; extended
elements that depend on local needs; and leading edge elements,
procedures that lead to competitive advantage.
The conference on 'World class quality' was attended by around
60 key personnel in quality assurance from across the business
including HPC, DiverseyLever, Research and Foods, including
Bestfoods. At last year's conference the 'road map' was mapped out,
while this year, delegates looked at implementation of the new
system and sharing and reviewing best practice.
On Tuesday, delegates visited the Heineken factory in the
Netherlands, to see how the company tackled quality management. The
evening before, at the official dinner, they heard Claude Francotte
of GB, a major Belgian retailer, explain what he expected of a
relationship between a company like his and Unilever.
Opening the forum on Monday, Rudy Markham, strategy and
technology director, said: "During the conference, you will work at
agreeing what world class quality really means and how best to
implement the road map principles. Your challenge is to deliver
world class quality management in your business unit, but doing
this by sharing your best practices and implementing them from
others."
"Our people, products and processes must be the best in the
market. Moving to fewer brands, produced in fewer factories, the
risk of our exposure to shortcomings in quality increases
dramatically. Together with more demanding customers and consumers
we must work with smaller quality tolerances, both in manufacturing
processes as in our control and acceptance procedures."
Mr Markham pointed out that incidents of poor quality continue
to occur in many parts of the business from product design, through
to sourcing, manufacturing and delivery and he cautioned that the
statistics of quality incidents may only be the tip of the
iceberg.
"We have to tackle the root causes," he said. "Like we learn in
TPM, ask at least three times 'Why?' to get to the bottom of a
problem."
The Foods Quality Assurance group has just established its
presence on the Unilever intranet. At the moment the site contains
all of the presentation materials used at the Unilever Quality
Conference held in November in Noordwijkerhout. You can download
the files for your own information, or to share the messages and
learnings with your teams. In the near future, we will be adding
much more content, covering our activities, training courses and
aspects of Quality Management in Foods Division.
The URL is http://fqag.unilever.comPaul Whitehouse FQAG,
Rotterdam
Responsible Use of Antibiotics in Food Animal Production
Objective
The objective of this Guideline is to support Unilever companies
in dealing with possible product safety/quality hazards and loss of
reputation arising from uncontrolled use of antibiotics in the
supply chain. At the same time this guideline should permit
Unilever to respond to market and consumer wishes. The Guideline
provides:
A co-ordinated and defensible Unilever approach with respect to
antibiotic use to ensure:
i.consumer safety and brand protection
ii.environmental care
iii.animal health
Guidance about sourcing materials of animal origin, for which
antibiotic use may be an issue.
Practical Guidance
Unilever buying organisations should specify that:-
Only legally approved antibiotics are being used on the farms of
their suppliers:
All antibiotics should be used under veterinary advice and in
accordance with the recommendations in the data sheets that are
supplied by the manufacturers:
QA schemes on the farm should document all antibiotic usage;
withdrawal periods must be complied with and documented as required
by legislation.
Preference should be given to suppliers, whose farmers:-
Control disease by Good Farming Practices, (e.g. farm hygiene,
selection of breeding stock, feed free of salmonellas) rather than
by antibiotics:
Do not use antibiotics, including growth promoters, in place of
optimal nutrition, good management and site hygiene
Suppliers should due diligence monitor and record the levels of
antibiotic residues in animal products, in addition to any analyses
that may be required by law. Additional tests by the receiving
company should be at their discretion.
The full fact sheet is available in the SHEACO database in the
Fact Sheets and News section or as a down load on the SEAC website
(http://seac.research.unilever.com) in the News archive area.
FDA Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/antimicrobial/taskforce2000.html
John Crowther & Sara Stewart SEAC Microbiology, Colworth;
John Wilkins & James Harris SEAC Contaminants, Colworth;
Martin Michels FBE, Rotterdam
UNILEVER CONSUMER SAFETY INCIDENT SUMMARY CS2
Product: Birds Eye potato waffles
Date: Nov-Dec 2000Manufacturing Company: Birds Eye Walls Ltd
Manufacturing Country: UKMarketing Countries: UK and Ireland
Nature of Incident: Metal contamination
People Affected: One claim of minor mouth injury
CAUSE: The contamination occurred when equipment on the
production line was damaged. A bearing at the exit end of a potato
blancher suffered partial failure without impairing its function.
As a consequence the shaft dropped slightly and a part of a
de-watering screen, at the exit to the potato dice blancher, became
damaged. This was due to undetected contact between a moving part
of the equipment and a stationary part. This led to progressive
wear and ultimately to degradation of part of the screen, and
consequently to some metal pieces entering the product stream. The
combination of stainless steel and the dimensions of the
contaminants prevented detection by metal detectors that were set
at 2mm. The problem had been discovered in the factory and
production had been restricted according to best judgement. ACTION
TAKEN BY COMPANY: A customer-call to the Careline alerted the
company, so the problem obviously existed prior to the restricted
period. The company issued a public recall. The recall could have
been initiated earlier if the Careline had been aware of the
original problem in the factory. Product involved was either held
by BEW, destroyed by stores, or returned to BEW. An independent
audit of factory controls and procedures was undertaken. A number
of recommendations relating to the root cause and factory controls
have been made and will be implemented. The company is exploring
options for the improvement of metal-detection capabilities. The
company also identified an additional Critical Control Point in the
line.
OUTSIDE BODIES INVOLVED:
Retailers were contacted regarding details of recall.
The Home Enforcement Authority (HEA) were advised of recall by
BEW and fully briefed. Good contact was maintained with the
HEA.
A local enforcement office handled one of the complaints. No
action was taken by them.
Various media carrying the recall notices.
BEW are respected by retailers and enforcement authorities as a
business ready and willing to act quickly and efficiently for
consumer safety. They therefore suffered very little adverse
publicity.
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED: HACCP studies for production equipment
need to focus on the possibility that certain components designed
to function with clearance between them may come into contact
causing progressive wear and product contamination.
Equipment of this nature which operates within enclosures needs
to be regularly inspected.
Metal detection cannot be regarded as a control method for metal
contamination, only as a last protection for large
contaminants.
Good two-way communication between Consumer Care and the
factories are important to minimise the impact of product
contamination on both consumers and product.
The ability to manage a successful recall and maintain support
from interested parties is helped by having a good reputation as a
business of high standards and competence in matters of consumer
safety, together with an open and honest approach.
Tony Heaney BEW; Maggie Wood SEAC Information
Hot Topics
Investigation of Salmonella outbreak reveals potential for
problems
An outbreak of S. Typhimurium PT 12 food poisoning in South
Australia during 1998 was linked to the consumption of a brand of
chicken nuggets. Ten cases of illness were recorded among consumers
aged between 3 and 14 years. S. Typhimurium PT 12 was isolated from
an opened sample of the implicated brand of nuggets retrieved from
one of their homes.
The implicated nuggets were a coated product containing raw
poultry that had been flash fried during production in order to set
the batter. Some similar brands are fully cooked through to the
centre during manufacture. The implicated nuggets were voluntarily
recalled by the producer.
Fully cooked and flash fried chicken nuggets provide the
consumer with different levels of microbiological safety. Products
that are fully cooked by the manufacturer are likely to be free of
infectious pathogens and will be safe, even if the consumer only
warms them. Flash fried products containing raw or undercooked
poultry, will not be free of infectious pathogens after manufacture
and thus require cooking (70oC for 2 minutes) by the consumer to
make them safe for consumption.
With similar brand positioning, similar packaging and the name
chicken nuggets, there is a real potential for consumers to confuse
these products and assume that they are all fully cooked. This is a
problem because the external appearance of the products is similar
and, if they are cut open, the flash fried products do not always
have the translucent appearance of obviously undercooked chicken.
Safe product use is therefore not obvious to the consumer.
Requirements for safe use are further confused because the cooking
instructions for the products are similar e.g. 15-20 minutes at
200oC for fully cooked nuggets and 20-25 minutes at 200oC for flash
fried nuggets.
This food poisoning outbreak originated because consumers
perceived and handled a raw product as if it was fully cooked.
Although valid cooking instructions were placed on the packaging,
the product appearance and name obscured the difference in risk.
The lesson to learn for Unilever is that without clear
differentiation between ready-to-eat and raw products, adequate
labelling with cooking instructions is not sufficient to ensure
safe handling and preparation. Where there is a high risk of the
raw materials containing pathogens (e.g. poultry), the best way to
prevent such outbreaks affecting Unilever is to continue to market
products that have been fully cooked during processing.
Reference: WHO Surveillance Programme for Control of Foodborne
Infections and Intoxications in Europe Newsletter, No. 64, June
2000.
Martyn Brown, Peter McClure and Niteen Sawant SEAC Microbiology,
Colworth.
BSE
The first ever cases of BSE in native born cattle have been
reported from Italy, Germany and Spain and cases continue to be
reported from other countries. This news, in addition to the
question marks over the implementation of Community safety laws on
BSE in the Member States and the collapse in consumer confidence in
the safety of beef has prompted the European Commission to impose a
series of additional measures. They include:
a temporary ban on the feeding of meat and bone meal (MBM) to
all farm animals
a requirement that all animals over 30 months are tested for BSE
to enhance consumer confidence
a requirement that the current list of specified risk materials
(SRMs), which must be removed and destroyed, should now also
include the entire intestine of bovines of all ages
a "purchase for destruction" scheme to remove from the food
chain all cattle aged over 30 months unless they have been tested
for BSE to ensure additional guarantees and to rebalance the beef
market
The European Commission also formally adopted a proposal to
require the testing of all "at risk" animals from 1 January 2001.
This requirement will be extended to all animals aged over 30
months from 1 July 2001.
Australia and New Zealand have announced that they are to ban
imports of beef from 30 European nations following concern about
BSE and vCJD.
Teresa Herd SEAC Information, Colworth Levels of dioxins/PCBs in
farmed salmon cause UK media concern
Recently a number of researchers have identified significant
concentrations of dioxins and PCBs in fish, including wild and
farmed species. A researcher from Surrey University has called for
further investigation of the impact of dioxins and PCBs in feed on
the concentrations found in the flesh of Scottish farmed Atlantic
salmon. The recent media interest in farmed salmon coincided with a
programme on the subject scheduled to be televised by the BBC on
Sunday 7th January. The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) expressed
concern about BBC News manipulation of public concern to boost
viewing figures. The FSA has advised that the long-term health
benefits from modest consumption of fatty fish in a balanced diet
outweigh concerns over chemical contaminants.
SEAC has anticipated this issue with a continuing programme of
surveillance of fish for chemical contaminants, including dioxins
and PCBs. A statement has also been prepared containing some
background information on this issue plus giving the position re
WHO and EU limits. It was produced jointly by Chris Wright (SEAC
Contaminants) and Andy Crimes (Regulatory Affairs Foods). It can be
obtained from either of them or the SEAC Enquiry Service.
Chris Wright SEAC Contaminants; Andy Crimes Regulatory Affairs
Foods
Elevated levels of the pesticide chlormequat found in fresh and
processed Italian tomatoes
In December 2000 an EU Food Alert was issued concerning levels
of chlormequat in certain fresh and processed tomato products
exported from Italy to Belgium. The Belgian authorities sampled
nine batches on 5 September and found residues of chlormequat in
six batches at 0.19, 0.89, 0.18, 0.49, 0.08 and 0.08 mg/kg. All of
these residues were in excess of the EC MRL (Maximum Residue Limit)
of 0.05 mg/kg, which is set at the limit of determination and will
apply from 1 July 2001. Four manufacturers were named:
Cirio Napoli Italia.
Elvea SRL, Via Nazionale 239-241, 84015 Nocera-Superiore (SA)
Italia.
Giaguaro S.P.A., Via Ingegno Sarno Italia.
Napolitano CEG & Co 84205 Eboli.
The importers/retailers were Colruyt; C.B.C. Kronenburg-Straat
55, 2000 Antwerpen; and Nino Ferrardi, Brussels.
Chlormequat chloride is a plant growth regulator used for stem
shortening in cereals, to improve fruit setting in pears, almonds,
vines, tomatoes and to prevent premature fruit drop in pears,
apricots, plums etc. It is also used on cotton, vegetables,
tobacco, and sugar cane and to produce more compact plants in
horticulture.
A previous issue in the UK with levels of chlormequat found in
pears during 1999 suggests that it leaves quite persistent
residues. The problem is compounded by the fact that EU MRLs for
chlormequat will all be set at the limit of determination from 1
July 2001 with the exception of certain cereals.
The tomato manufacturers named in this incident are all located
in the South of Italy near Sorrento and none are Unilever
suppliers. It is not clear yet whether the residues are caused by
actual application on the tomato crop or some form of cross
contamination. It has also been suggested that it could be coming
from Chinese tomato paste imported into Italy, but this seems
unlikely as it was also found on fresh tomatoes.
A risk assessment carried out by the Pesticide Safety
Directorate suggests there is no unacceptable risk to health
involved from these levels (SEAC Toxicology are also carrying out a
risk assessment). However SEAC Contaminants recommends that the
business obtain assurances from suppliers for any vulnerable
materials that residues of chlormequat are below the EU MRL,
preferably backed up by analytical results. If this is not
available it may be prudent for companies to have their own
analyses carried out but it should be noted that this compound is
difficult to determine analytically, and will not be covered in a
normal pesticide screen. As SEAC Contaminants are not set up to
perform the determination at present it is suggested companies use
the UK Central Science Laboratory contacting Mr S Brewer, Tel:
01904 462448, Fax: 01904 462111 for details. Expect to pay about
150 per sample. Please inform SEAC Contaminants of any results
obtained.
Chris Ebden SEAC Contaminants
WHO CAN HELP YOU?
Amendments are shown in bold italic
QUERYFOODSPERSONAL CAREHOME CAREDIVERSEYLEVER
GENERAL SHE
ENQUIRIESFor any safety-related questions please contact the
SEAC Enquiry Service
Outlook: SEAC, Enquiry-Service; email:
[email protected]:
http://seac.research.unilever.com; (Tel: 44 1234 222700; Fax: 44
1234 248054)
HYGIENIC PROCESSING &
PLANT DESIGNSEAC (Fax: 31 10 4605188)
Roy Curiel (Tel: 31 10 4605766)URPS (Fax: 44 151 6411824)
Mrs D L Woodall (Tel: 44 151 6413977)
URPS (Fax: 44 151 6411803)
Dr C A Eastwood (Tel: 44 151 6413279)
URPS (Fax: 44 151 6411803)
Dr C A Eastwood (Tel: 44 151 6413279)
TOXICOLOGICAL ADVICE & CLEARANCESEAC(Fax: 44 1234
222122)
Dr P Hepburn(Tel: 44 1234 222125)
SEAC (Fax: 44 1234 222122)
Dr G R Gilpin (Tel: 44 1234 222432)
Outlook: SEAC, Toxicology-URC; email:
[email protected]
MICROBIOLOGICAL ADVICESEAC(Fax: 44 1234 222277)
Mr D Kilsby (Tel: 44 1234 222986)
Dr P McClure (Tel: 44 1234 222010)URPS (Fax: 44 151 6411800)
Mr P Jay (Tel: 44 151 6411672)
SEAC(Fax: 31 10 4605188)
Dr L Gorris (Tel: 31 10 4605709)Miss D Murphy (Tel: 44 151
6413185)
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATIONSEAC (Fax: 44 1234 222599)
Mr P R Brawn (Tel: 44 1234 222011)
URVl(Fax: 31 10 4605671)
Dr M Lipp(Tel: 31 10 4605214)
Crisis Telephone (Tel: 44 1234 781781)SEAC (Fax: 44 1234
222599)
Dr S Lalljie (Tel: 44 1234 222597)
Crisis Telephone (Tel: 44 1234 781781)
METHODS OF ANALYSISURVl - UMA Foods (Fax: 31 10 4605671)
Mrs Dr Y S J Veldhuizen (Tel: 31 10 4605463)URPS - UMA B and UMA
E (Fax: 44 151 6411801)
Mr A Loosley (Tel: 44 151 6411669) email:
[email protected], Maarssen
Mr R Dohmen (Tel: 31 30 2476812)
QA CONTACTSFQAG Rotterdam (Fax: 31 10 2174149)
Central Asia/ China, EAP: Mr J van der Jagt (Tel: 31 10 2174865)
AMET, LA: Mr B Debets (Tel: 31 10 2174293)
SERIOUS PROBLEMS OR INCIDENTSProduct Incident Manager (24h Tel:
31 10 2174466)
FQAG Rotterdam (Fax: 31 10 2174149)
For follow up reports only, you can use Outlook: FQAG, Incident
Manager or email: [email protected]
Head of SEAC: Dr B Sangster (Tel: 44 207 8225291) (Fax: 44 207
8225881)
For medical advice relating to Occupational Health, contact your
local Occupational Health Service or:
Head Corporate Occupational Health: Dr John Cooper, UH London
(Tel: 44 207 8225871 or out of office hours: 44 207 8225252)
Head Occupational Health Europe: Dr Bernard Luten, UNV Rotterdam
(Tel: 31 10 2174989 or out of office hours: 31 10 2174000)
Consumer Safety News and all SHEACO documents are available on
the SHEACO Lotus Notes database. Additions/amendments to the
circulation list of Consumer Safety News should be sent by email to
the SEAC Enquiry Service. Requests for SHEACO documents should be
sent by email to Sandra Darton at the SHEACO Secretariat, Unilever
House, London.
EMBED Word.Picture.8
PAGE \# "'Page: '#''"
_1040129989.doc
Consumer Safety
Consumer Safety
News
News
SHE
SHE
ACO
ACO
Safety Health and Environment
Action Committee
A SUMMARY OF NEWS AND VIEWS FROM
AROUND THE WORLD
February 2001 2000
Issue Number 56
Unilever
For Unilever internal use only
