Vol. 27, Number 9 February 2018gory coconut milk products fall into for food addi-tive permissions. “FSANZ is proposing to create a new category to ensure regulatory certainty so

Monthly News and Analysis on Food Law, Food Safety and Policy from Around the World

C O N T E N T S

Vol. 27, Number 9 February 2018

World Food Regulation Review

AROUND THE WORLD

AUSTRALIA: ASEL Review Open for Stakeholder Input 3

AUSTRALIA: Listeriosis Outbreak Linked to Rockmelon 3

AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND: Call for Submissions on

New Additive Category for Coconut Milk Products . . 4

AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND: Consultation Paper on

New Breeding Techniques Released . . . . . . . . . . 4


New Source for Enzyme Processing Aid . . . . . . . . 5


New Source for Enzyme Processing Aid . . . . . . . . 5

AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND: Proposal Aims to Make

Allergen Labelling Clearer for Businesses and

Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

EUROPEAN UNION: Antimicrobial Resistance in

Zoonotic Bacteria Still High in Humans, Animals and

Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

EUROPEAN UNION: EFSA Advisory Forum Calls for

More Public Investment in Food Safety Research . . . 7

EUROPEAN UNION: Novel Food Applications: New

Administrative Guidance for Applicants . . . . . . . . 7

EUROPEAN UNION: Neonicotinoids: Risks to Bees

Confirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

FINLAND: Shortcomings in Product Selections and

Information Provided by Online Shops . . . . . . . . . 8

FRANCE: ANSES Publishes its First

Phytopharmacovigilance Fact Sheets . . . . . . . . . . 9

GERMANY: One Health: Joint Health Research . . . . . 10

IRELAND: FSAI Advice Line Received 3,400 Food

Complaints in 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

NETHERLANDS: Chance of ESBL Contamination Via

Livestock Farming is Small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

NEW ZEALAND: MPI and Dairy Industry Extend Milk

Testing Programme for Mycoplasma bovis . . . . . . . 19

NEW ZEALAND: Stink Bug Treatment for Italian

Shipping Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

NEW ZEALAND: Food Safety Law Reform Bill Passed 13

NEW ZEALAND: Dairy Industry Restructuring

Amendment Bill passed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

SLOVENIA: Unfair Trading Practices in Food Supply

Chain Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

UNITED KINGDOM: CCTV in Slaughterhouses:

Legislation Laid in Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

UNITED KINGDOM: Joint Statement: FSA, Food

Standards Scotland and Representatives of the UK Meat

Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

UNITED KINGDOM: Industry-wide Review Launched

into Meat Processing Plants Across the UK. . . . . . . 17

UNITED STATES: Statement on National Toxicology

Program Draft Report on Bisphenol A . . . . . . . . . 18

FEATURE

The forthcoming 50th meeting of the Codex

Alimentarius Committee on Food Additives (CCFA50)

is expected to make significant progress in reducing the

backlog on food additives other than sweeteners and

colours, but will also discuss important changes to the

ways the Committee is working to move towards a

“CCFA 2.0”. The meeting will also address the

important suggested enhanced alignment of the food

additive provisions included in the Codex General

Standard on Food Additives (GSFA) with vertical food

standards on fish and fishery products and is expected

to continue that fundamental work on other

standardized foods. CCFA50 will also address the

regular points on its agenda regarding actions of other

Codex bodies, the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Meeting on

Food Additives (JECFA), revisions to the class names

and international numbering system for food additives,

and assignment of new priority items for review by

JECFA

By Christophe Leprêtre and Katia Merten-Lenz . . . . 19

FEATURE

The forthcoming 12th meeting of the Codex

Alimentarius Committee on Contaminants (and Toxins)

in Foods (CCCF12) has a loaded agenda, including the

adoption of new and revised maximum tolerable levels

for contaminants and toxins, such as lead, cadmium,

methyl mercury, total aflatoxins, and ochratoxin A in

several foods. CCCF12 will also consider the adoption

of two codes of practices concerning the reduction of (i)

dioxins, PCB-like dioxins, and (ii) 3-MCPD and

glycidyl esters in refined vegetable oils and derived

products, especially in infant formulas. In addition, for

the first time, CCCF12 will discuss a new guidance for

risk analysis of the inadvertent low level presence of

chemicals in food. Furthermore, CCCF12 will review

several discussion papers paving the way to continue

working on other maximum levels (i.e. hydrocyanic

acid, lead, aflatoxins and sterigmatocystin) as well as a

code of practice for the prevention and reduction of

cadmium in cocoa (beans). Last, CCCF12 will address

possible actions, based on (i) feedback from other

Codex bodies, including the outcome of the last relevant

FAO/WHO Joint Expert Meeting on Food Additives

(JECFA).

By Christophe Leprêtre and Katia Merten-Lenz . . . . 24

INTERNATIONAL

Global Food Safety Conference 2018 / GFFA:

“Significant Milestone” on Road to Sustainable,

Efficient Animal Husbandry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

ISSN: 0963-4894 (Print)

1752-7449 (Online)

WORLD FOOD REGULATION REVIEW

Published by Research Information Ltd

Managing Editor: Bob Yorke, U.K. Email [email protected]

Advisory Board – World Food Regulation Review

Lucas Bergkamp, Esq., Hunton & Williams, Brussels, BelgiumMarietta E. Bernot, International Trade Services, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.Leo F. Bick, Association of Brazilian Food Manufacturers, Sáo Paulo, Brazil

Neville Craddock, Neville Craddock Associates, Surrey, EnglandJohn S. Eldred, Esq., Keller and Heckman, Washington, D.C., U.S.AClausen Ely, Jr., Esq., Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

James S. Fraser, Consultant, Wellington, New ZealandPaul S. Gray, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels,

BelgiumCarla Hilhorst, Unilever R&D, Vlaardingen, The Netherlands

Charles Lister, Covington & Burling, London, EnglandRichard A. Merrill, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville,

Va., U.S.A.Raymond O’Rourke, Food & Consumer Lawyer, Ireland

David Panasiak, Consultant, Canberra, AustraliaStuart M. Pape, Esq., Polsinelli, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

John C. Russell, Food Additives Industry Association, London, EnglandKatia Merten-Lentz, Keller and Heckman, Brussels and Paris, Belgium and France

Alayne E. Swanson, Esq., Maclay Murray & Spens, Glasgow, ScotlandArnold Van Hecke, Esq., Hogan & Hartson, Brussels, Belgium

Luis González Vaqué, Asociacion Iberoamericana para del DerechoAlimentario, Buenos Aires-Madrid

Prof. Dr. F.G. Winarno, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Bogor, Indonesia

WORLD FOOD REGULATION REVIEW is published by Research Information Ltd., Grenville Court, Britwell Road, Burnham, Bucks. SL1 8DF, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1628600499; Fax: +44 (0)1628 600488; Email: [email protected]. Correspondence concerning editorial content should be sent to the Managing Editor atthe above address. Subscription price £572/US$1144 for twelve monthly issues. Additional copies to existing subscribers at half price when sent in the sameenvelope as a standard subscription. Orders, claims and other enquiries should be sent to the above address.No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, or used in any information storage or retrieval system, without the priorwritten permission of the publisher, except as follows: (1) Subscribers may reproduce, for local internal distribution only, the highlights, topical summary and table ofcontents pages unless those pages are sold separately; (2) Subscribers who have registered with The Copyright Clearance Center and who pay the fee of US$2.00per page per copy fee may reproduce portions of this publication, but not entire issues. The Copyright Clearance Center is located at 222, Rosewood Drive,Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, USA; tel: +1 978 750 8400.No responsibility is accepted by the Publishers or Editors for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of product liability, negligence or otherwise,or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in this publication.Advertising material is expected to conform to ethical standards, but inclusion in this publication must not be construed as being any guarantee of quality, value orsafety, or endorsement of any claims made by the advertiser.Electronic and printed editions of the same publication are often similar, but no guarantee is given that they will contain the same material or be formatted in a similarmanner

AROUND THE WORLD

AUSTRALIA

ASEL Review Open for Stakeholder Input

Public consultation on stage one of the Austra-

lian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL)

review opened 6 February 2018.

Deputy Secretary at the Department of Agricul-

ture and Water Resources, Malcolm Thompson, to-

day invited livestock exporters, animal welfare

groups, producer groups and interested members

of the public to provide their input.

“The current ASEL standards have underpinned

very strong animal welfare outcomes, with the

mortality rate for Australian livestock exported by

sea on a downward trend since 2006,” Mr Thomp-

son said.

“This review is ensuring any potential updates to

the standards are informed by the best possible evi-

dence and those with relevant experience.

“We have engaged an expert committee to lead

the review, and the contribution of stakeholders

will be extremely valuable.

“This review is being conducted in stages to ad-

dress priority issues and allow us to align review

topics with research.

“Stage one is seeking feedback on a proposed

new format for the standards, along with key issues

that the committee should address in the next

stages of the review.

“Feedback will help the committee recommend

improvements to the format of the standards and

set direction for the rest of the review.”

Stakeholders can submit their feedback by com-

pleting a short survey or uploading written submis-

sions through the ‘Have Your Say’ website.

An updated work plan for the review and a con-

sultation report is expected to be published on the

department’s ASELReview website by July 2018.

To make a submission (prior to 20 March) or for

more information, see the URL below.

See agriculture.gov.au/animal/welfare/export-trade/review-asel

or haveyoursay.agriculture.gov.au/review-asel-stage-1

AUSTRALIA

Listeriosis Outbreak Linked toRockmelon

The New South Wales (NSW) Food Authority is

advising consumers who are most vulnerable to

Listeria infection – such as older persons and peo-

ple who have weakened immune systems due to ill-

ness or pregnancy – to avoid eating rockmelon

after a recent spike in listeriosis cases in elderly

people has been linked to the fruit.

As a precaution, consumers who may have rock-

melon already in their home have been advised to

discard it.

Listeria is found widely in the environment and

rarely causes serious illness in the general popula-

tion, but for vulnerable people, such as those who

are over 70, pregnant, or have diabetes, cancer or

suppressed immune systems, it can be extremely

serious or even life threatening.

All states and territories are working together to

investigate the outbreak, and to date they have

identified ten cases in elderly patients in NSW

(six), Victoria (one) and Queensland (three) with

onset of illness notification dates between 17 Janu-

ary and 9 February 2018. All 10 cases consumed

rockmelon prior to their illness.

The outbreak has been linked to a grower in

NSW. The company voluntarily ceased production

on Friday 23 February 2018, shortly after being no-

tified of a potential link to illness, and is said to be

working proactively with the Authority to further

investigate how any contamination could have oc-

curred in order to get back into production as soon

as possible.

Listeriosis begins with flu-like symptoms such

as fever, chills, muscle aches, nausea, and some-

times diarrhoea. The symptoms can take a few days

or even up to six weeks to appear after eating con-

taminated produce. People at risk should consult

their local doctor as early as possible should symp-

toms appear.

The six NSW cases linked to consumption of

© Copyright 2018 Research Information Ltd. All rights reserved. ISSN 0963-4894

AROUND THE WORLD 3

rockmelon form only a portion of the increased

listeriosis cases in NSW so far this year, with 15

people affected, mainly elderly with underlying

health conditions. Vulnerable people are reminded

to avoid all foods that pose a risk of listeriosis,

including:

� Pre-cut melons such as rockmelon or

watermelon

� Pre-packed cold salads including coleslaw

and fresh fruit salad

� Pre-cooked cold chicken, cold delicatessen

meats, pâté

� Raw seafood, uncooked smoked seafood

(e.g. smoked salmon)

� Unpasteurised milk or milk products, soft

cheeses (e.g. brie, camembert, ricotta or

blue-vein)

� Sprouted seeds or raw mushrooms.

The NSW Food Authority and NSW Health are

continuing investigations into other possible

sources of the remaining recent listeriosis cases.

Food safety advice relating to the safe prepara-

tion and storage of rockmelon can be found at the

URL below.

See www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/foodsafetyandyou/

special-care-foods/rockmelons

AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND

Call for Submissions on New AdditiveCategory for Coconut Milk Products

Food Standards Australia New Zealand

(FSANZ) called for submissions 5 February on an

application to create a new food additive category

for coconut milk products.

FSANZ Chief Executive Officer, Mark Booth,

said the Australian Food and Beverages Importers

Association applied to change the Food Standards

Code because of confusion about which food cate-

gory coconut milk products fall into for food addi-

tive permissions.

“FSANZ is proposing to create a new category

to ensure regulatory certainty so coconut milk pro-

ducers can use the additives needed to prevent sep-

aration of the fat and water parts of the product”

said Mr Booth.

All FSANZ decisions on applications are noti-

fied to ministers responsible for food regulation

who can decide to ask for a review or agree that the

standard should become law.

The closing date for submissions is at close of

business 19 March 2018.

See www.foodstandards.govt.nz/code/applications/Pages/

A1144.aspx


Consultation Paper on New BreedingTechniques Released


(FSANZ) released a consultation paper 15 Febru-

ary seeking feedback on new breeding techniques

and current requirements in the Food Standards

Code.


said the paper looks at the new breeding techniques

and how food laws should apply to food derived

from them.

“Since Standard 1.5.2 – Food produced using

gene technology was first introduced in 1999, a

range of new plant and animal breeding techniques

have been developed,” Mr Booth said.

“We have been monitoring these techniques and

working with experts to understand how foods pro-

duced using them should be regulated by food

laws. At this stage, we are not proposing any

changes to the Code. The review is being con-

ducted to ensure that a broad range of issues has

been considered before any decision is made to

consider varying the Code.

“If, after considering all feedback, we decide to

raise a proposal to change the Code, there would be

further consultation with the community.”

The closing date for submissions is 12 April

2018.

Consultation Paper

See www.foodstandards.govt.nz/consumer/gmfood/Pages/

Review-of-new-breeding-technologies-.aspx


4 WORLD FOOD REGULATION REVIEW


Call for Submissions on New Source forEnzyme Processing Aid


(FSANZ) called for submissions 15 February on an

application to allow the use of an existing enzyme

processing aid from a new source.


said the enzyme (endo-1,4-�-xylanase) is used in

the manufacture and/or processing of bakery prod-

ucts, cereal products, grain, cereal based beverages

(including beer) and potable alcohol.

“It works by breaking down cell walls in

plant-based foods, which will improve quality and

production of food. The source for this enzyme is a

genetically modified strain of Trichoderma

reesei,” Mr Booth said.

“FSANZ has determined there are no public

health or safety issues associated with the new

source.”



who can ask for a review or agree that the standard

should become law. The closing date for submis-

sions is 29 March 2018.


A1153.aspx


Call for Submissions on New Source forEnzyme Processing Aid


(FSANZ) called for submissions 1 March on an ap-

plication to permit the use of a new source for an

existing enzyme processing aid.


said the applicant was seeking to use the enzyme,

?-Galactosidase, to produce

galacto-oligosaccharide (GOS) from lactose which

will be used as an ingredient in various foods.

“FSANZ has undertaken a risk assessment of the

new source for the enzyme and concluded there are

no public health and safety concerns relating to this

enzyme,” Mr Booth said.



who can decide to ask for a review or agree that the

standard should become law.

The closing date for submissions is COB 12

April 2018.

Read the call for submissions report for A1151


A1151%e2%80%93Beta-Galactosidase%20from%20Papiliotrema

%20terrestris%20as%20a%20Processing%20Aid%20%28Enzyme

%29.aspx


Proposal Aims to Make Allergen LabellingClearer for Businesses and Consumers


(FSANZ) called for submissions 1 March on a pro-

posal that will make allergen labelling require-

ments clearer to help both consumers and food

businesses.


said the Plain English Allergen Labelling Proposal

will “address a lack of regulatory clarity” that has

led to unclear wording on some food labels.

“At the moment, some food allergens must be

declared on food labels whenever they are present

as an ingredient, food additive or processing aid,”

Mr Booth said. “However, there are no require-

ments about how the declarations must be made.

“This is the first of two rounds of consultation on

the proposal. It proposes possible changes to ad-

dress the lack of clarity, including determining

what terminology should be used. Simpler, clearer

more easy to understand labels is the goal.”

See www.foodstandards.govt.nz/code/proposals/Pages/

P1044PlainEnglishAllergenLabelling.aspx

EUROPEAN UNION

Antimicrobial Resistance in ZoonoticBacteria Still High in Humans, Animalsand Food

Bacteria from humans and animals continue to

show resistance to antimicrobials, according to a

new report published 27 February by the European


AROUND THE WORLD 5

Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European

Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

(ECDC). The report highlights some emerging is-

sues and confirms antimicrobial resistance as one

of the biggest threats to public health, mainly by re-

ducing the effectiveness of treatment options.

Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commissioner

for Health and Food Safety reaffirmed his commit-

ment to tackle AMR, saying “Levels of

antimicrobial resistance still differ significantly

from one EU country to another. To win the fight,

we need to join our efforts and implement stringent

policies on the use of antibiotics across sectors. It is

vital that we all renew our commitment to fight

antimicrobial resistance by focusing on the key ar-

eas set out in the EU One Health Action Plan

against antimicrobial resistance.”

Among the new findings, based on data from

2016, are detection of resistance to carbapenems in

poultry, an antibiotic which is not authorised for

use in animals, and of ESBL-producing Salmo-

nel la Kentucky with high resis tance to

ciprofloxacin in humans, which was reported for

the first time in four countries.

Marta Hugas, EFSA’s chief scientist said “The

detection of resistance to carbapenems in poultry

and to linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylo-

coccus aureus in pigs is alarming because these an-

tibiotics are used in humans to treat serious

infections. It is important that risk managers fol-

low-up on these findings.”

Mike Catchpole, ECDC’s chief scientist com-

mented on the results, saying “We are concerned to

see that Salmonella and Campylobacter bacteria in

humans show high levels of antimicrobial resis-

tance. The fact that we keep detect ing

multidrug-resistant bacteria means that the situa-

tion is not improving. We need to investigate the

origins and prevent the spread of highly resistant

strains, such as ESBL-producing Salmonella

Kentucky.”

Main Findings

Animals and foods

� Resistance to carbapenem antibiotics was

detected at very low level in poultry and in

chicken meat in two Member States (fifteen

E. coli bacteria). Carbapenems are used to

treat serious infections in humans and are

not authorised for use in animals

� Two Livestock-Associated Methicillin Re-

sistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria

found in pigs were reported to be

linezolid-resistant. Linezolid is one of the

last-resort antimicrobials for the treatment

of infections caused by highly-resistant

MRSA

� Combined clinical resistance to critically

important antimicrobials was observed at

low to very low levels in Salmonella

(0.2%), Campylobacter (1%) and E. coli

(1%) in poultry

� Resistance to colistin was observed at low

levels (2%) in Salmonella and E. coli in

poultry

� Prevalence of ESBL-producing E. coli in

poultry varies markedly between the Mem-

ber States, from low (less than 10%) to ex-

tremely high levels (more than 70%).

Bacteria that produce ESBL enzymes show

multi-drug resistance to ?-lactam antibiot-

ics – a class of broad spectrum antibiotics

which include penicillin derivatives,

cephalosporins and carbapenems. This is

the first time that the presence of ex-

tended-spectrum beta- lactamase

(ESBL)-producing E. coli was monitored

in poultry and poultry meat.

Humans

� One out of four infections in humans are

caused by Salmonella bacteria that show

resistance to three or more antimicrobials

commonly used in human and animal med-

icine. The proportion is significantly higher

in S. Kentucky and S. Infantis (76.3 and

39.4% respectively)

� For the first time, ESBL-producing S. Ken-

tucky with high resistance to ciprofloxacin

was detected in four countries. These bac-

teria are not possible to treat with critically

important antibiotics

� Campylobacter bacteria, which cause the

most common foodborne disease in the EU,

show high resistance to widely used antibi-

otics (ciprofloxacin resistance 54.6% in

C. jejuni and 63.8% in C. coli; tetracyline

resistance 42.8% in C. jejuni and 64.8% in

C. coli). The levels of resistance increased

in two of the three analysed antibiotics



(ciprofloxacin and tetracycline) but com-

bined resistance to the critically important

antimicrobials is stable and overall low

(0.6% in C. jejuni and 8.0% in C. coli). In

some countries, however, at least one in

three C. coli infections were multidrug-re-

sistant to important antibiotics, leaving

very few treatment options for severe

infections.

The European Union summary report on antimicrobial

resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans,

animals and food in 2016

See www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5182

EUROPEAN UNION

EFSA Advisory Forum Calls for MorePublic Investment in Food SafetyResearch

National food safety authorities from all 28 EU

Member States, Iceland and Norway have called

for more public investment in food safety research

and given a commitment to support European re-

search through partnership building and training,

among a range of other measures.

In a joint statement with the European Food

Safety Authority (EFSA), the Advisory Forum,

tasked with providing EFSA with strategic advice

on scientific issues, also stressed the benefits of in-

creased interaction between funders, EU agencies

and national partners on food safety research.

The statement came the day before EFSA’s first

Risk Assessment Research Assembly (RARA) in

Utrecht. The Assembly brings together national re-

search organisations, funders and EU policy mak-

ers to share ideas and explore opportunities for

research in food safety.

Speaking before the event, EFSA’s Executive

Director Bernhard Url said “There is a compelling

case to be built for public funding in food safety re-

search. We must not forget that research and inno-

vation among and within Member States ultimately

feeds into the risk assessments that we carry out at

an EU level, which are the basis for public health

policies in Europe.

“The first Risk Assessment Research Assembly

is a great opportunity for researchers to share their

proposals, discover others working on similar pro-

jects, and meet with funding bodies that can help

turn their ideas into reality.”

See www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/

news/180206_rara_statement.pdf

EUROPEAN UNION

Novel Food Applications: NewAdministrative Guidance for Applicants

New guidance is available that will help appli-

cants to prepare novel food applications for sub-

mission to the European Food Safety Authority

(EFSA).

The administrative guidance includes a check-

list of the data requirements outlined in EFSA’s

Guidance on the preparation and presentation of

an application for authorisation of a novel food

and four tables where applicants should summarise

the scientific studies referred to in their technical

dossier.

Administrative guidance on the submission of applications for

authorisation of a novel food pursuant to Article 10 of

Regulation (EU) 2015/2283

See www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/1381e

EUROPEAN UNION

Neonicotinoids: Risks to Bees Confirmed

Most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides represent a

risk to wild bees and honeybees, according to as-

sessments published 28 February by the European

Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Authority has

updated its risk assessments of three neonicotinoids

– clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam –

that are currently subject to restrictions in the EU be-

cause of the threat they pose to bees.

These new conclusions update those published

in 2013, after which the European Commission

(EC) imposed controls on use of the substances.

For the new assessments, which this time cover

wild bees – bumblebees and solitary bees – as well

as honeybees, EFSA’s Pesticides Unit carried out

an extensive data collection exercise, including a

systematic literature review, to gather all the scien-

tific evidence published since the previous

evaluations.


AROUND THE WORLD 7

The team also applied the guidance document

developed by EFSAspecifically for the risk assess-

ment of pesticides and bees.

Jose Tarazona, Head of EFSA’s Pesticides Unit,

said “The availability of such a substantial amount

of data as well as the guidance has enabled us to

produce very detailed conclusions.

“There is variability in the conclusions, due to

factors such as the bee species, the intended use of

the pesticide and the route of exposure. Some low

risks have been identified, but overall the risk to the

three types of bees we have assessed is confirmed.”

EFSA finalised its conclusions following two

separate consultations with pesticide experts in the

EU Member States. The experts have supported the

conclusions.

As with the previous assessments, exposure of

bees to the substances was assessed via three

routes: residues in bee pollen and nectar; dust drift

during the sowing/application of the treated seeds;

and water consumption.

Next Steps

EFSA’s conclusions will be shared with risk

managers from the European Commission and

Member States, who will consider potential

amendments to the current restrictions on the use of

these pesticides.

Q&A: Conclusions on neonicotinoids 2018 (PDF)

See www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/news/

180228-QA-Neonics.pdf

FINLAND

Shortcomings in Product Selections andInformation Provided by Online Shops

In a study conducted by the Finnish Food Safety

Authority, Evira, unauthorised medicinal claims

were found in the marketing of a total of 59 food

supplements sold online, while unauthorised novel

foods were sold in 35 online shops.

Evira participated in the first European Union

(EU) common control project of distance selling of

foods in the autumn of 2017. Online shopping sites

targeted at Finnish consumers were searched for

unauthorised novel foods and medicinal marketing

on foods related to bone and joint health.

Medicinal Marketing of Foods MisleadsConsumers

Medicinal claims related to osteoporosis or ar-

thritis were found in 59 online shops selling food

supplements. Of these online shops, 49 were Finn-

ish, 9 shops were located in another Member State,

and 1 was an online shop from the USA. In the case

of 5 online shops, the responsible operator could

not be identified.

Food supplements are foods and they may not be

marketed using medicinal claims, such as “pre-

vents osteoporosis”, “treats osteoarthritis”, “cures

joint inflammation”, or “reduces joint pain”. Prop-

erties related to curing, treating, or preventing dis-

eases can only be attributed to medicines.

“It is advisable to be critical if the effect prom-

ised in an advertisement or in the labelling sounds

very medicinal. It may be an attempt to deceive the

consumer,” said Senior Officer Marjo Misikangas

from Evira.

Only authorised nutrition and health claims may

be made on foods. Foods do not go through the

authorisation procedure which is required of medi-

cines for the assessment of their composition and

effect before the medicine is placed on the market.

The composition and marketing of foods is not

controlled until after they have been placed on the

market.

Novel Food Status Requires History of Use orAuthorisation Procedure

Searches made in the online shops concerned

agmatine sulphate as well as Acacia rigidula,

Epimedium grandiflorum and Hoodia gordonii

plants. They are all non-authorised novel foods,

i.e., their safety when used as food has not been

verified. They were found in the selection of 35 on-

line shops. Agmatine sulphate was the one found

most, with products containing it on sale in 20 on-

line shops. Nine of them were Finnish online

shops. Agmatine sulphate is used in – for example

– products intended for sportsmen.

Products containing the Epimedium

grandiflorum plant were found in four online

shops, of which three were Finnish. Acacia

rigidula was on sale in one online shop, as was also

the Hoodia gordonii. Both of these were foreign

online shops. In the case of 9 online shops, the re-

sponsible operator could not be identified.



Novel foods refer to foods with no traditional

history of food use within the EU prior to 1997.

They can only be placed on the market in the EU

through an authorisation procedure to ensure their

safety.

Responsibility Lies with Domain NameRegistrant

The responsibility for the compliance of the

foods marketed in an online shop as well as for the

information provided on them lies with the food

business that has registered the domain name.

Where prohibited products were found in the on-

line shop of a business that had registered the do-

main name in Finland, a control request was

forwarded to the municipal food control authority

in the domicile of the food business.

Effective Cooperation Between Authorities

For control of online shops located in other

Member States, assistance was requested from the

authorities of the Member State concerned through

the EU’s Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food

(RASFF) or the EU’s Administrative Assistance

and Cooperation system (AAC). The European

Commission was notified about online shops the

responsible operator of which was assessed to be

located outside the EU. Evira says it will continue

the development of the control of E-commerce in

Finland and will actively participate in cooperation

at EU level.

Https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/official_controls/legislation/ccp/

online-offered-food-2017_en

FRANCE

ANSES Publishes its FirstPhytopharmacovigilance Fact Sheets

ANSES published the first in a series of fact

sheets 2 February summarising the data it collects

for each act ive substance under the

phytopharmacovigilance scheme it coordinates.

The aim of phytopharmacovigilance is to be able to

take swift action on a product’s marketing

authorisation if a harmful effect is observed, in or-

der to prevent its occurrence, for example by

amending the product’s conditions of use, limiting

its uses, or even withdrawing the marketing

authorisation. These summarised fact sheets,

which contain all the information from the surveil-

lance and vigilance schemes working in partner-

ship with phytopharmacovigilance, are therefore

particularly useful to ANSES in the context of the

decisions associated with the process of examining

marketing authorisation applications for plant pro-

tection products, as well as to risk managers, for de-

fining the measures to be put in place if needed.

The phytopharmacovigilance scheme is a health

monitoring system whose aim is to protect human

and animal health and the environment by identify-

ing any adverse effects associated with the use of

plant protection products as early as possible. This

scheme, which was set up in 2015, is described as

“unique in Europe”: it takes all these adverse ef-

fects into account, whether they relate to human,

animal or plant health, or food or the environment.

From 2 February, ANSES is publishing fact

sheets presenting all the data it collects as part of

the phytopharmacovigilance scheme, for each ac-

tive substance. This information comes from the

systematic and regular collection of data and obser-

vations produced by the surveillance and vigilance

bodies already in place, which work in partnership

with the phytopharmacovigilance scheme.

These sheets therefore contain information for

each active substance on:

� The use of the active substance

� The presence of this active substance in

media (water, food, ambient air, human

blood concentrations)

� The risks to the population associated with

exposure to this active substance

� The observed impacts and any potential

links with this active substance.

The availability of this new tool is intended to pro-

vide insights for risk managers when defining appro-

priate risk management measures, and for ANSES

when examining marketing authorisation applica-

tions for plant protection products, in addition to the

information it receives from the applicants.

The fact sheets can also be used to identify gaps

in knowledge to be addressed by strengthening the

partner schemes or setting up specific studies. The

information available will be supplemented and

updated as new data are collected, knowledge is

improved or the network is extended to include

new partners.

See www.anses.fr/en/content/phytopharmacovigilance


AROUND THE WORLD 9

GERMANY

One Health: Joint Health Research

The fate of humans and animals is often linked in

various ways through pathogens. Around 60% of

all disease germs can infect humans and animals to

the same extent. To face up to this challenge, the

close cooperation of physicians, veterinarians and

other health experts is being sought all over the

world in One Health initiatives.

A European One Health programme started at

the beginning of the year in which more than 40

partners from 19 European countries are

participating.

“Antimicrobial resistance and threats through

new pathogens are controversial examples of the

extent to which the health and illness of humans,

animals and the environment are linked together,”

said Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel, President of

the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment

(BfR). “A joint European research programme un-

der the auspices of One Health can help to counter

microbial risks effectively.”

The German partners of the European Joint

Programme on One Health are the BfR, the

Friedrich Loeffler Institute and the Robert Koch

Institute.

The goal of the European Joint Programme

(EJP) is to build up a European platform for One

Health which satisfies the needs of European and

national political decision makers and interest

groups (stakeholders). To this end, European insti-

tutions from the fields of medicine, veterinary

medicine and consumer health protection in the

food sector are to expand their cooperation in order

to achieve progress in the containment of

foodborne zoonoses (infections transferred be-

tween humans and animals), antimicrobial resis-

tance (AMR) and new infection hazards (emerging

threats).

The One Health concept takes into account the

close link between human health, animal health

and the environment. Accordingly, the close con-

nection between the safety of feeds and foods and

human and animal health and environmental con-

tamination is observed. The examination of infec-

tious pathogens which can be transferred from

animals to humans is an important focal point of

this EJP, a new research programme within the EU

framework programme for research and innova-

tion “Horizon 2020” sponsored by the European

Commission. The One Health EJP (Grant Agree-

ment 773830) is headed by the French Agency for

Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and

Safety (ANSES).

The cooperation between the 40 partners is to be

strengthened by the programme. Each partner also

has reference tasks, which means that they set the

yardstick for examinations. They already form an

organised network and represent a research com-

munity in the thematic areas of foodborne

zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance and emerging

threats. Over a total period of five years, a sum of

Euro 90 million is to be spent on activities within

this network. 50% of the costs are being provided

by the European Commission with the other half

being carried by each respective member state.

The One Health EJP will generate scientific

data, methods and software programs which can be

used by national and European institutions to as-

sess health risks and possible preventive measures.

An exchange with other large-scale projects spon-

sored by the European Commission will be guaran-

teed at the same time. One of the tasks will be the

efficient and regular transfer of knowledge be-

tween the research community and national author-

ities, as well as international and European

stakeholders.

BfR Sub-projects

A further goal of the One Health EJP is the ex-

pansion of collaboration between the institutes

through interdisciplinary cooperation. This is to be

realised through joint research projects and inte-

grative schemes, as well as basic and further train-

ing measures. The BfR is involved in five research

projects and two integrative schemes and is head-

ing the Science to Policy Translation work pack-

age, in which measures for the best possible

transfer of results from the research projects and in-

tegrative schemes to the stakeholders involved in

the areas of foodborne zoonoses, antimicrobial re-

sistance and emerging threats are to be developed.

The BfR is also coordinating the integrative pro-

ject “ORION” (One health surRveillance Initiative

on harmOnisation of data collection and interpreta-

tion). The main focus of this project is the exchange

of data and information generated during the moni-



toring, collection and interpretation of data on

health and wellbeing. Cooperation among the insti-

tutions is also being further improved through the

cooperation of 13 institutes from seven countries

active in the fields of public health and veterinary

medicine.

See www.anses.fr/en/content/anses-will-coordinate-european-

joint-programme-one-health-european-research-programme-0

IRELAND

FSAI Advice Line Received 3,400 FoodComplaints in 2017

Over 3,400 consumer complaints were handled

by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland’s (FSAI)

Advice Line in 2017, with over a third of those re-

lating to complaints of unfit food. Overall, the 2017

complaints saw an increase of 6% on the 3,200 re-

ported in 2016, with the number of complaints re-

lating to non-display of allergen information up

significantly at 42%. A considerable increase was

also noted among complaints relating to incorrect

information on food labels at 17%.

The FSAI said the majority of consumer con-

cerns relating to allergen information included a

variety of non-compliance issues, such as a lack of

allergen information available in restaurants; con-

fused messages regarding the presence of particu-

lar allergens in food; lack of awareness by food

businesses of the legal requirement to display aller-

gen information; allergens not highlighted on a

food label; and allergens present in a food, but not

indicated or displayed.

The Authority said the categories of complaints

were as follows:

� 1,233 complaints on unfit food

� 896 complaints on hygiene standards

� 808 complaints on suspect food poisoning

� 183 complaints on incorrect information on

food labelling

� 103 complaints on non-display of allergen

information

� 102 other.

Contamination of food with foreign objects was

frequently reported by consumers, which included

reports of food contaminated with insects and

glass, as well as other foreign objects. Examples of

complaints received included chewing gum being

reported several times as being present in a number

of foods, including sandwich wraps; scrambled

egg from a breakfast buffet; and in takeaway rice.

Other foreign objects found in foods were a long

black hair in a sandwich; rodent droppings in a bag

of crisps; a tooth in a takeaway dish; larvae in jar of

beetroot; a piece of glass in a smoothie; maggots in

mashed potato; and a wasp in a packet of rashers.

Of those complaints regarding poor hygiene

standards in food premises, rats, mice and flies be-

ing present in premises were cited. Others included

poor personal hygiene habits of staff working in the

food sector. Reports in this area cited staff wiping

noses when preparing sandwiches; staff members

picking up dropped food from the floor and then in-

cluding the food to make a sandwich; and the smell

of sewerage in food premises. All complaints re-

ceived by the FSAI in 2017 were followed up and

investigated by food inspectors throughout the

country.

The FSAI’s Advice Line also offers advice and

information and during 2017, there were 9,576

queries from people working in the food service

sector; manufacturers; retailers; researchers; and

consultants. The most popular queries were regard-

ing legislation on food labelling requirements; re-

quests for FSAI publications, as well as

information for new food businesses setting up

operations.

Dr Pamela Byrne, Chief Executive, FSAI said

“We welcome consumers and food businesses con-

tacting us via our Advice Line. Having people spot-

ting and reporting inappropriate and unsafe food

and practices greatly aids our work and provides us

with information that we can act upon. The year on

year increase in our Advice Line statistics reflect a

continued trend where consumers are showing they

have zero-tolerance when it comes to poor food

safety and hygiene standards in food products and

in food premises. In 2017, we undertook a nation-

wide campaign to raise awareness of the impor-

tance and legal requirement for allergen

information to be displayed and communicated ac-

curately to consumers in food service establish-

ments. We are seeing consumers becoming more

aware and having a greater understanding of what

they should expect from food establishments in

Ireland.”


AROUND THE WORLD 11

NETHERLANDS

Chance of ESBL Contamination ViaLivestock Farming is Small

Extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs)

are enzymes, produced by certain bacteria, which

make thse bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Re-

searchers from various institutes collaborating in a

large consortium discovered that ESBLs occur fre-

quently in livestock, the food chain, the environ-

ment and also in humans. However, ESBLs in

livestock and meat were found to be genetically

different from those in humans. This means that

humans acquire ESBLs to a limited extent via live-

stock and through eating meat. Transmission

mainly occurs between humans. These are the most

important conclusions of the ESBLAT Research

Consort ium*, part of the 1Health4Food

programme in the area of animal and human health.

The results were presented during the ESBLAT

symposiumin Utrecht, The Netherlands, on 9

February.

The ESBL enzyme ensures that bacteria become

resistant to an important group of antibiotics. An

infection with these resistant bacteria is more diffi-

cult to treat, which may be a problem for vulnerable

people in particular.

Humans as a Source

About five percent of the Dutch population carry

ESBLs in their intestines. The researchers found

major similarities between ESBLs from healthy

carriers and people with an infection caused by

these bacteria. This means that humans are an im-

portant source for the transmission of ESBLs to

other humans.

People who are occupationally exposed to ani-

mal sources as a result of their work, such as live-

stock farmers and abattoir employees, have a

higher chance of carrying ESBLs. Unlike the

ESBLs in livestock and other people, the ESBLs of

livestock farmers and their livestock do exhibit a

high degree of similarity. That is due to the inten-

sive, direct contact between these risk groups and

the livestock.

Animals

A total of 22 different reservoirs where bacteria

accumulate were investigated. ESBLs were found

in all of these reservoirs. For example, the re-

searchers found ESBLs in pets, wild birds, poultry,

pigs, cattle, and in surface water. However, the

ESBLs they found in livestock and in meat showed

little genetic similarity with those found in hu-

mans. This means that livestock farming contrib-

utes less to ESBL carriership in humans than was

previously assumed. It is therefore a misconcep-

tion that humans mainly acquire ESBLs through

eating meat (especially chicken meat). If the meat

is sufficiently cooked and there are adequate hy-

giene measures in the kitchen, then the chance of

people being exposed to ESBLs is small.

Environment

ESBLs in the environment were also studied dur-

ing the research. Surface water often contains ESBLs.

That is mainly due to the discharge of purified

wastewater from the sewerage system, but also be-

cause animal manure can end up in surface water.

Nevertheless, the chances of people coming into con-

tact with these, for example through swimming, is

small as concentrations of ESBLs in water are low.

People who live near livestock farms are also ex-

posed to ESBLS, from the air, for example. How-

ever, they do not have an increased risk of carrying

ESBLs. In conclusion, the research has shown that

the contribution of livestock farming via the envi-

ronment is small as well.

* ESBLAT Research Consortium

The Research Consort ium consis ts of

Wageningen University, Utrecht University,

RIVM, the Dutch National Institute for Public

Health and the Environment, University Medical

Center Utrecht and GD Animal Health. The re-

search is part of 1Health4Food. This is a public-pri-

vate research consortium in the area of animal and

human health. Organisations in different sectors

are jointly collaborating with the government in

this consortium. In recent years, this research

programme has worked on ten different projects.

The project is financially supported by the Dutch

Topsector Agri & Food. Within the Topsector, pri-

vate industry, knowledge institutes and the govern-

ment are working together on innovations for safe

and healthy food for 9 billion people in a resilient

world.

See www.1health4food.nl/nl/show/ESBLAT-Symposium-2018.htm



NEW ZEALAND

Food Safety Law Reform Bill Passed

Food Safety Minister, Damien O’Connor, wel-

comed the passing into law of the Food Safety Law

Reform (FSLR) Bill on 22 February.

The new law addresses the recommendations

from the Whey Protein Concentrate (WPC) Con-

tamination Inquiry.

“New Zealand has made substantial progress in

putting in place the WPC Inquiry recommenda-

tions operationally, but some recommendations

needed legislative change,” said Mr O’Connor.

“The Food Safety Law Reform Bill addressed

these recommendations and its passage will rein-

force New Zealand’s reputation as a reliable sup-

plier of safe and suitable food.”

The Bill amends the Animal Products Act 1999,

Food Act 2014, and Wine Act 2003 so that im-

provements, recommended by the dairy-focused

WPC Inquiry, apply across the system.

“Many modern businesses work under more

than one food safety Act. Better aligned processes

under these three food safety Acts means there will

be a more consistent approach for businesses

across the whole food safety system.

“The new law includes a range of changes to

strengthen our responses to food safety incidents,

create a more consistent and fair approach to en-

forcement for non-compliance, and improve the

Government’s accessibility to information from

third-parties. It also allows us to create regulations

where food and medicines converge.

“The law supports other steps the Government is

taking to ensure the New Zealand food safety sys-

tem is strengthened and continues to remain fit for

purpose,” Mr O’Connor says.

Q&A

What is the Food Safety Law Reform Bill?

Some of the recommendations from the Whey

Protein Concentrate (WPC) Contamination In-

quiry required changes to the legislation. The Food

Safety Law Reform Bill addressed these

recommendations.

The legislation supports other steps the Govern-

ment is taking to ensure the New Zealand food

safety system is strengthened and continues to re-

main fit for purpose.

What was the WPC incident?

The WPC contamination incident in 2013 origi-

nated from a suspected contamination of whey pro-

tein concentrate with clostridium botulinum. After

extensive tracking and a precautionary recall, au-

thorities were able to establish that products were

not contaminated.

The Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein

Concentrate Contamination Incident concluded

that New Zealand’s food safety regulatory model is

consistent with international principles and is

among the best in the world.

However the Inquiry took the opportunity to rec-

ommend some changes to further strengthen the

system. The Government has accepted all the rec-

ommendations and has made substantial progress

with implementing these, most of which are being

or have been implemented by non-regulatory

means.

What are the changes under the FSLR Act?

The new law amends the Animal Products Act

1999, Food Act 2014, and Wine Act 2003 to further

strengthen our food safety regulatory system.

These three Acts are the main food safety legisla-

tion that underpins New Zealand’s reputation as a

reliable supplier of safe and suitable food.

As well as implementing the WPC Inquiry rec-

ommendations, the amendments provide further

consistency and better align some of the processes

and systems under all three Acts, such as the ability

to use electronic systems and consistent enforce-

ment tools.

The key things that the new law does are:

� Enables regulations to set the content and

format of the parts of custom risk manage-

ment programmes and plans that must be

provided to MPI for registration, and al-

lows the Director-General to require

amendments to programmes and plans if

they are not able to be easily understood

� Enables regulations to provide more-de-

tailed traceability obligations and provide

the ability for the Government to set recall

requirements as needed, given the impor-


AROUND THE WORLD 13

tance of traceability to New Zealand’s food

safety and reputation

� Allows New Zealand to create regulations

where food and medicines converge

� Adds enforcement tools currently in the

Food Act (improvement notices, an in-

fringement regime, compliance orders, and

penalties based on commercial gain) to the

Animal Products Act and Wine Act, to help

develop a more consistent and fair ap-

proach to enforcement for non-compliance

across the food safety system

� Allows Government to require businesses

and individuals that deliver services to food

operators (for example, research and diag-

nostic laboratories) to provide information

relevant to managing serious food safety

incidents. Having essential information

during an incident is crucial for determin-

ing the scale of response required. The law

includes safeguards to protect the supplier

of the information

� Clarifies that when recognised agencies

and persons are providing verification and

evaluation services, their primary account-

ability is to the regulator

�Modernises the legislation by harmonising

the Acts to allow use of automated elec-

tronic systems for statutory functions, for

example issuing export certifications

� Addresses the WPC Inquiry’s concern

about the increased use of tertiary notices

for dairy regulation by providing a best

practice framework for the use of regula-

tions and notices.

Who will the new law affect?

To some degree, any food business regulated un-

der the Animal Products Act, Food Act, or Wine

Act may potentially be affected. In addition, agen-

cies or people providing services to businesses in

the food sector (such as research and diagnostic

laboratories) may be affected if a serious food inci-

dent occurs.

Are these changes indicative of issues with the

current laws?

No, these changes do not indicate that there are

issues with the current food safety laws. New Zea-

land has a strong domestic and international repu-

tation for food safety. But as part of maintaining

our regulatory model we are always looking to im-

prove our system to better enable New Zealand

businesses to take advantage of the changing food

production and export landscape.

See www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/

document/00DBHOH_BILL69227_1/food-safety-law-reform-bill

NEW ZEALAND

Dairy Industry Restructuring AmendmentBill Passed

Provisions to manage multinational dairy co-op-

erative, Fonterra’s, dominant position in New Zea-

land’s dairy markets will continue under changes to

the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001

(DIRA).

Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor,

says the law change, passed by Parliament 15 Feb-

ruary, means the efficiency and contestability pro-

visions of the Act will no longer expire in the South

Island on 31 May 2018.

The Government says it will now “undertake a

comprehensive review of the DIRA and consult

fully with the dairy sector”.

Minister O’Connor says the review will consider

key issues facing the dairy industry, including, for

example, environmental impact, land use,

Fonterra’s obligation to collect milk, and how to

achieve the best outcomes for farmers, consumers

and the New Zealand economy.

Details on timing, delivery and definitive scope

will be considered by Cabinet in the coming weeks.

“It was not in the interest of farmers, dairy pro-

cessors, consumers, or the wider New Zealand

economy to let these key DIRA provisions expire

in the South Island and tinkering with the Act

would not answer some of the bigger questions fac-

ing the industry,” said Mr O’Connor.

“By rolling over the Act and committing our-

selves to a wide-ranging review we are taking a

considered and strategic approach to the changing

needs of the dairy industry.’’

A report from the Commerce Commission, pub-

lished in 2016, found that competition was not yet

sufficient to warrant the removal of the DIRA pro-

visions. This Government is satisfied that it is ap-

propriate to retain the existing provisions while the

review is conducted.



“Officials are currently working on the terms of

reference for the review, and I intend to share these

with the New Zealand public and the dairy industry

in the first half of this year,” said Mr O’Connor.

The DIRA was passed in 2001 to manage

Fonterra’s dominant position in dairy markets until

sufficient competition emerged. Its automatic ex-

piry provisions were triggered in 2015, when other

dairy processors collected more than 20 percent of

milk solids in the South Island.

See www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/

document/BILL_75878/dairy-industry-restructuring-amendment-

bill-no-2

SLOVENIA

Unfair Trading Practices in Food SupplyChain Examined

The Competition Protection Agency recently

published the results of a survey on unfair trading

practices in the food supply chain, which the

agency conducted among suppliers of food prod-

ucts, including producers, purchasers, processing

companies and intermediaries. Despite the small

number of responses, the agency obtained some

useful information on the functioning of the

Slovenian food market.

Background

Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain

are regulated in the Agriculture Act(1) and are de-

fined as practices imposed by one contracting party

with significant market power (evident from the

volume or value of sales) on another party contrary

to good business practices – in particular:

� the failure to comply with the prescribed

payment deadlines; or

� the imposition of unfair conditions,

including:

� additional payments, discounts, promotions

or other services;

� unfair delivery terms;

� counter t rade under uncompeti t ive

conditions;

� additional payments in order to reach or fail

to reach certain sales levels;

� the unconditional return of unsold goods;

and

� charging another contracting party the costs

for missing inventory or thefts.

The agency is supervising the implementation of

the respective provision of the Act.

Aims of Survey

The aims of the survey were to:

� Gain more comprehensive insight into al-

legedly unfair trading practices between

suppliers and retailers;

� Establish possible unfair trading practices

in the food supply chain; and

� Obtain information or data to initiate pro-

ceedings against alleged violators.

Results

The survey was sent to 559 suppliers of food

products, but only 61 responded. This could be be-

cause they were afraid that responding would lead

to a loss of business or, on the contrary, because

they do not see this problem as a pressing issue.

Still, the agency concluded that the market re-

sponse signifies that there are unfair trading prac-

tices in the food supply chain.

The unfair practice most commonly indicated by

respondents was the failure to comply with pre-

scribed payment deadlines, followed by the impo-

sition of additional payments. The agency

described as unfair retailers’ practice of charging

costs to suppliers which are not reflected in the ser-

vice performed or from which the supplier does not

gain a mutual benefit. These practices include,

among others:

� Charging for activities that were not agreed

in the contract;

� Reimbursing services that were not pro-

vided or that were provided but were not

agreed on by the parties in writing;

� Paying purchase promotional prices for

goods outside the promotion period;

� Returning delivered but unsold goods in

cases where the retailer regularly orders

larger quantities than actual sales made;

� Charging costs after the delivery and ac-

ceptance of goods (eg, damages, thefts, lo-

gistical and storage costs);

� Charging compensation for a drop in the re-

tailer’s turnover, sales or margin due to re-

duced sales of certain goods; and


AROUND THE WORLD 15

� Retailers requesting that suppliers not sell

goods to other retailers at lower prices.

Comment

The food supply chain affects all consumers on a

daily basis. Before a good reaches the consumer, a

number of market participants add to its value and

influence the final price paid by the consumer.

Therefore, special attention should be paid to un-

fair trading practices by all market participants.

In addition, the agency called for better and more

transparent regulation of the unfair trading prac-

tices in the Act. In particular, ‘significant market

power’ and ‘imposition’ should be defined more

precisely, which would help the agency to establish

certain practices as unfair and take appropriate ac-

tion against violators.

UNITED KINGDOM

CCTV in Slaughterhouses: LegislationLaid in Parliament

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Af-

fairs, Food Standards Agency, Animal and Plant

Health Agency, and The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP

Following a number of high-profile cases of se-

rious animal abuse in British slaughterhouses, the

UK government has bent to overwhelming public

opinion, laying legislation 23 February making

closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras manda-

tory in slaughterhouses in England to safeguard an-

imal welfare.

The legislation will come into effect from May

2018, once it passes through Parliament, at which

point businesses will have six months to comply.

In August 2017, the Secretary of State launched

a consultation on the plans to deliver a manifesto

commitment for CCTV to be required in every

slaughterhouse in England in all areas where live

animals are present, with unrestricted access to

footage for Official Veterinarians – with the inten-

tion of reassuring consumers that high welfare

standards are being effectively enforced.

Asummary of responses published in November

showed that of almost 4,000 respondents, more

than 99% were supportive of the plans.

The proposals will give the Food Standards

Agency’s (FSA) Official Veterinarians (OVs) “un-

fettered access” to the last 90 days of footage to help

them monitor and enforce animal welfare standards.

The FSAsaid it has “strict processes” in place for

the approval of slaughterhouses, and specially

trained vets carry out checks to make sure the wel-

fare of animals is protected throughout their time in

the slaughterhouse. If breaches are found, a slaugh-

terhouse can be given a welfare enforcement no-

tice, have its staff’s licences suspended or revoked,

or be referred for a criminal investigation.

Heather Hancock, Chairman of the Food Stan-

dards Agency, said “I welcome this new legislation

being introduced. It will help businesses to im-

prove animal welfare and hygiene standards across

the industry.”

“Minimal Progress” Without CCTV

In a recent interview Ms Hancock had said “Last

year, the FSA Board concluded that, without man-

datory CCTV in slaughterhouses, we would see

minimal further progress in businesses improving

animal welfare or complying with official controls

to protect public health.”

Businesses will have six months to comply with

the legislation once it has passed through Parlia-

ment. The penalty for failing to comply will be an

enforcement notice to the business or prosecution.

Read the ‘Mandatory Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

recording in slaughterhouses: Summary of responses and

Government response’

See www.gov.uk/government/consultations/animal-wel-

fare-cctv-in-slaughterhouses

UNITED KINGDOM

Joint Statement: FSA, Food StandardsScotland and Representatives of the UKMeat Industry

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA), Food

Standards Scotland (FSS) and representatives of

the UK meat industry issued a joint statement 20

February regarding recent high-profile cases of

non-compliance with food hygiene regulations

within the industry. The statement reads as follows:

“We – the Food Standards Agency, Food Stan-

dards Scotland and representatives of the meat in-



dustry across the UK – met to discuss concerns

arising from the recent examples of non-compli-

ance with food hygiene regulations identified at a

small number of meat cutting plants.

The discussion was constructive and engaging

with all in the meeting agreeing the need for close

collaboration and co-operation between regula-

tors and industry in responding to the issues raised

by recent events.

As regulators and industry bodies we have a

shared interest in making sure that consumer trust

in the UK meat industry remains high. The food

chain depends on trust and we want people to be

confident that the meat they enjoy has been pro-

duced to the highest standards.

We recognise that some concerns have been un-

covered by recent regulatory inspections. In most

cases businesses involved have taken actions to

demonstrate compliance and continue to trade

normally. Where those concerns were serious, en-

forcement procedures have been put in place.

We will continue to work together to support

meat businesses in fully understanding what is ex-

pected of them in relation to current regulations

and ensuring full and effective industry engage-

ment with the forthcoming FSA/FSS review of cut-

ting plants and cold stores.”

UNITED KINGDOM

Industry-wide Review Launched into MeatProcessing Plants Across the UK

The UK Food Standards Agency and Food Stan-

dards Scotland published details 1 March of a ma-

jor review into the sites where meat products are

processed and stored in the UK.

Food Standards Scotland and Food Standards

Agency announced that:

� A comprehensive review of hygiene con-

trols will be launched

� That the review will include unannounced

inspections and audit regimes.

The Food Standards Agency announced that:

� It will work with industry to implement

CCTV across cutting plants

� There will be increased intelligence gather-

ing through audit data sharing pilots across

industry

� There will be improved insight into circum-

stances and factors leading to

non-compliances and the ability to antici-

pate them.

Announcement in Detail

Also published 1 March was the FSA’s update to

the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Commit-

tee’s inquiry into standards in poultry processing,

and the findings of the FSA’s investigation into 2

Sisters Food Group.

Jason Feeney and Geoff Ogle, Chief Executives

of the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards

Scotland respectively, jointly commented:

“We are concerned about recent instances of

companies breaching hygiene rules. People rightly

expect food businesses to keep to the rules, rules

designed to keep consumers safe and to sustain

public trust in food - and food businesses have a

duty to follow the regulations. Our review will be

far reaching and thorough and we will announce

our initial findings in June.

We are pleased that the meat industry represen-

tatives who we met with have pledged their full and

effective engagement with the review.”

The review launched 1 March will aim to:

� Increase public and stakeholder confidence

in the meat industry and its regulation

� Improve the ability to identify non-compli-

ance and take prompt action to minimise

the risk to public health and food safety

� Assess how the industry currently operates

across the whole supply chain

� Increase awareness of circumstances and

factors which can lead to non-compliance.

The scope of the review will incorporate:

� All types of cutting plants (red meat, white

meat and game)

� How the current legislation works and the

guidance supporting it

� How the ‘official controls’ are carried out

which must be followed to ensure compli-

ance with hygiene legislative requirements

(this includes audits, inspections, sampling

and surveillance)


AROUND THE WORLD 17

� The roles and responsibilities of food busi-

nesses, regulators and assurance bodies

� How incidents are managed and responded

to.

See www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/

reviewofcuttingplantsandcoldstores_0.pdf

UNITED STATES

Statement on National ToxicologyProgram Draft Report on Bisphenol A

The United States Deputy Commissioner for

Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Stephen Ostroff,

issued a Statement February 23 on the National

Toxicology Program draft report on Bisphenol A

(BPA). The Statement reads as follows:

“One of the U.S. Food and Drug Administra-

tion’s highest priorities is our role in ensuring the

safety of the foods that Americans consume. We

base our regulatory decisions on robust science so

consumers can feel confident about the foods they

eat. The FDA looks at all available scientific evi-

dence when reviewing the safety of foods and food

packaging, and regularly collaborates with other

federal partners to protect and promote public

health.

One area that has been of significant consumer

interest is the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in food pack-

aging. BPA is authorized for use in polycarbonate

plastics and epoxy resins in certain food and bever-

age can linings. Given this interest, the FDA has

routinely considered and evaluated the scientific ev-

idence surrounding the use of BPA and continues to

conclude that BPA is safe for the currently autho-

rized uses in food containers and packaging.

As part of our ongoing commitment to reviewing

the safety of BPA, we not only continue to evaluate

available data – but also conduct FDA research on

the safety of the use of BPA for food packaging.

Today, the National Toxicology Program (NTP)

released for public comment a pre-peer review

draft report on the findings of a comprehensive

two-year rodent study examining the potential ef-

fects of BPA on health. The study was conducted by

senior scientists at the FDA’s National Center for

Toxicological Research (NCTR). The study is part

of a collaborative effort called the Consortium

Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA

Toxicity (CLARITY-BPA), which was established

by the FDA and the National Institute of Environ-

mental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National

Institutes of Health after a 2008 NTP report raised

some concerns about developmental effects in ro-

dents exposed to relatively low doses of BPA. Ex-

perts from federal agencies and academic grantees

worked together to design and conduct studies

through the CLARITY-BPA research program to

address data gaps identified. CLARITY-BPA had

two components: the core study conducted at

NCTR according to FDA Good Laboratory Prac-

tice regulations; and CLARITY-BPA academic

studies of various health endpoints, conducted by

grantees at academic institutions and using off-

spring of rodents derived from the core study.

Although today’s draft report only includes data

from the NCTR core study, it is an important step

for this consortium. An integrated report incorpo-

rating the core study and data from grantees will be

published in the future.

The core study was designed to look at the effects

of several different doses of BPA evaluating

chronic and early life exposure in two different

groups of rodents. The doses ranged from low

doses that would be comparable to typical human

exposures, to doses that vastly exceed human expo-

sures. A variety of endpoints were evaluated in-

cluding growth, weight and tumor development.

Overall, the study found “minimal effects” for the

BPA-dosed groups of rodents. The report did iden-

tify some areas that may merit further research,

such as the increase in occurrence of mammary

gland tumors at one of the five doses, in one of the

groups. But the significance of these findings will

be assessed through the peer review process.

Although a comprehensive review of this report,

along with future data from other CLARITY-BPA

research, will be conducted as part of our contin-

ued assessment of BPA safety, our initial review

supports our determination that currently autho-

rized uses of BPA continue to be safe for consum-

ers. The report also builds upon the already

extensive data collected in the FDA’s 2014 assess-

ment of the safety of BPA.

We look forward to the external peer review of

this study in April, which is an important and cus-

tomary step in the scientific process. In addition,

public comment on the draft report is welcome and

can be provided to NTP.”



FEATURE

The forthcoming 50th meeting ofthe Codex Alimentarius Committee

on Food Additives (CCFA50) isexpected to make significant

progress in reducing the backlogon food additives other than

sweeteners and colours, but willalso discuss important changes tothe ways the Committee is workingto move towards a “CCFA 2.0”. The

meeting will also address theimportant suggested enhancedalignment of the food additive

provisions included in the CodexGeneral Standard on Food

Additives (GSFA) with vertical foodstandards on fish and fisheryproducts and is expected to

continue that fundamental work onother standardized foods. CCFA50will also address the regular pointson its agenda regarding actions ofother Codex bodies, the FAO/WHO

Joint Expert Meeting on FoodAdditives (JECFA), revisions to the

class names and internationalnumbering system for food

additives, and assignment of newpriority items for review by JECFA.

Mr Christophe Leprêtre1

Mrs Katia Merten-Lentz2

The 50th session of the Codex Alimentarius

Committee on Food Additives will be held in

Xiamen (China) from 26 to 30 March 2018, pre-

ceded by an important pre-session working group

in person (PWG) to advance recommendations to

the CCFA50 plenary. These will especially include

recommendations regarding the draft pending pro-

visions discussed since last year by an electronic

working group on GSFA and proposals on new or

revised-adopted provisions. The session will cele-

brate the 50th anniversary of the CCFA. It will also

be marked by a landmark leadership change as its

historical chairman, the honourable Pr Junshi

Chen3, will pass on the relay to his talented protégé

Dr Yongxiang Fan, who has already demonstrated

the necessary skills as vice-chairperson at

CCFA49 last year. Nostalgic “Codexians” already

deeply regret the highly-recognized chairmanship

of Pr Chen (one of the best in the Codex system to

be frank) and all he has accomplished for the CCFA

and the Codex Alimentarius standards in general

in the past eleven years (and well before then); at

the same time, newcoming “Codexians” already

have great expectations about Dr Fan’s style and

leadership.

CCFA50’s agenda Item 8 working documenton Future Strategies, towards a “CCFA 2.0”:

great hopes to see CCFA addressingdifferently outstanding issues and adoptingnew ways CCFA may operate to speed up

new substances and provisions in the futureand accelerating the completion of GSFA

4

� Relationship between CCFA and JECFA:

speeding up the considerations of draft

food additives provisions for inclusion, dis-

cussion and adoption into the GSFA, once

JECFA safety evaluation has been com-

pleted to foster CCFA coping with food ad-

ditive innovation

The working paper contains several recommen-


FEATURE 19

1 Food Engineer, Regulatory and Scientific Counsellor at Keller and Heckman LLP.

2 Food Law Attorney & Partner at Keller and Heckman LLP.

3 Pr Junshi Chen has been universally praised as an internationally and nationally well-known and respected expert on

food additives - and more widely on food safety risk assessment and management - for decades and moreover as the Chair-

person of the CCFA since 2007, when China became the host country of CCFA after the Netherlands and the split of former

CCFAC into CCFA (food additives) and CCCF (contaminants).

4 The Codex GSFA is also known as CODEX STAN 192 (now CXS 192), and it is composed of a preamble, appendices,

e.g. defining the hierarchic food categorizations system, and Tables 1 to 3 containing all adopted food additive provisions, as

well as the list of Notes, specifying further conditions of use for such provisions.

dations to reduce the timespan between the final re-

view of the safety of a given substance by JECFA

and the consideration for final adoption by CCFA.

Currently, there is no clear systematic guidance to

the Committee as to when draft provisions may be

discussed, once they are introduced at step two into

the GSFA. That time-lapse varies from 3 up to 20

years. The proposals aim to minimize the time be-

tween the conclusions of the risk assessment per-

formed by JECFA and the review by CCFA. By

doing so, CCFAwill be able to cope with food tech-

nology innovations found safe by JECFA and will

ensure more secure planning for businesses intend-

ing to use new safe (and more naturally grown)

food additives.

�Way forward to address one of the most

contentious issues in the past 10 years: the

“Note 161” issue

Recommendation two is suggesting several

pathways to reignite the sulphurous debate on Note

161, a note introduced to the GSFA more than 10

year ago. Note 161 aims at helping CCFA to adopt

food additive provisions while recognising that

countries may have some different views on how to

implement such provisions at a national level. Note

161 refers to the principles for using food additives

enshrined in the preamble of the GSFA, which ap-

plies at this moment to all food additive provisions

included in and for inclusion into the GSFA.

Many countries are realising that referring to na-

tional authorities’ flexibility to implement Codex

standards may impact their rights and obligations

under the World Trade Organizations SPS and TBT

Agreements. But it should be noted that the two are

in fact disconnected. All Codex standards are in

principle voluntary (i.e. country members of the

Codex Alimentarius Commission have no obliga-

tion to implement Codex text, as this is non-bind-

ing international “soft law”). Nevertheless, it is an

acceptable argument to consider that “additives”

fall under the WTO SPS (for safety aspects) and

TBT (for fair practices to consumers) and thus the

issue of Note 161 is not solely a “Codex” issue.

The working document offers some pathways as

a starting point for further discussion to consider

whether this Note 161 glass is half-full or

half-empty, or simply for recognising what any Co-

dex text is. Note 161 may not be necessary at all, as

it is simply repeating the nature of any Codex

adopted provision. But its deletion from GSFA

may be replaced by at least an overall common un-

derstanding about the next step “rules of the game”

in future negotiations on pending provisions.

What food business operators fear the most from

that discussion is to end up with some self-destructive

battle (each opposing party may indeed stick to its

own interpretation of Note 161). Food business oper-

ators do overall agree on one thing: CCFA should

swiftly complete its work on GSFA and consider

many 20+ year-old pending provisions, put on-hold

for discussion because of more than 10 years of total

misunderstanding – and probably mistrust – over the

Note 161 genesis and ways it has been used by CCFA

and its PWG on GSFA in the past. There too, there is

hope that all new standard-making regulators in the

various country delegations – bearing in mind the

reasons for the recent failed attempt to resolve the is-

sue of Note 161 to intense sweeteners – would lead to

a more constructive and open minded dialogue on the

pending provisions for several colours. This includes

natural colours which are desperately needed by food

business operators for possible reformulation to serve

consumer demand for “healthier” processed foods –

whether real or perceived; that’s another debate – and

for helping to ensure the Codex GSFAbecomes more

and more an effective unique point of reference for

global harmonization on food additives After all, ex-

amples of references to national and regional compe-

tent authorities added to the Codex commodity

standards to deviate from them are legion (see WFRR

Vol. 27, Number 7 issue, December 2017 –

CCNFSDU39 Outcome – discussion on FUF com-

position) and relate to provisions with dual WTO

SPS/TBT aspects embedded in them, and it does not

create the same crispation. Future will tell but the

“good will” to search for agreeable solution(s) to all

parties is going to be the key factor to gradually re-

solve the “Note 161” issue. But this will only be pos-

sible if those who have been putting oil on this fire

would admit it may be in their best – long run – inter-

est to see this issue less passionately discussed.

� Other recommendations to address more

technical aspects of CCFA prioritiza-

tion-setting process and suggest ways to

modernize the INS

The working document also includes other rec-

ommendations to enhance the more automatic

alignment of food additive provisions set by Codex

Commodity Committees on food standards, to-

gether with the corresponding food categories de-



fined in the GSFA, and vice versa. It also suggests a

scoring system to address emerging new issues,

while advocating the status quo with the predomi-

nant role played by the chairs of the four key

inter-session EWGs re-established at each CCFA

session (i.e. on the (i) INS, (ii) Alignment,

(iii) JECFA list of priorities and (iv) GSFA). More

details will be provided in the next WFRR March

2018 issue.

Finally, it includes recommendations to address

the presence in the international numbering systems

(INS) of food additives which have never been re-

viewed by JECFA, or do not include draft provisions

in the step process in GSFA, or both. These apparent

discrepancies come predominantly from the genesis

of the INS in the 1990s as a concatenation of lists of

permitted food additives mainly in the EU, USA,

Australia/New Zealand and Japan. It has yet to be

determined to what extent those recommendations

may lead to a comprehensive clean-up of the INS,

i.e. the deletion those food additives never reviewed

by JECFA and not yet in GSFA, and then subse-

quently may lead to the suppression of their permit-

ted uses at national level, even in other countries

than those at the origin of the INS. It might also re-

sult in a pledge to suppliers of these substances to

take initiatives to have them reviewed – or reconsid-

ered for review for a couple of them (e.g. paraffin) –

by JECFA in the foreseeable future. Another issue

may be addressed in the context of this thorough re-

view of the INS, namely the role of a parent INS

number versus sub-listed INS numbers such as (a)

anthocyanins under INS 163, versus individual

numberings of various botanical sources of

anthocyanin extracts; (b) waxes, paraffin and petro-

leum oils under INS 905, etc.)

Pre-session PWG and recommendations onGSFA pending provisions already reviewedby an inter-session EWG on GSFA: the core

work of CCFA to see significant outcome andprogress this year

Like every year, the CCFA50 plenary will con-

sider the recommendations for adopting, revoking,

revising or further discussing GSFA provisions

based on the work of the PWG on GSFA meeting

on the Friday and Saturday before CCFA50. The

PWG itself will review the recommendations re-

sulting from the report of the inter-session EWG on

GSFA, which included two rounds of discussions

about the draft food additives provisions that

CCFA49 assigned to it (see WFRR Vol. 26, Number

11, April 2017). Three main and landmark outputs

(in terms of the number or importance) are ex-

pected this year:

� Draft and proposed draft provisions in the

GSFA regarding the second half of food

categories (from fish products to prepared

foods)5; this part constitutes the largest

number of draft provisions still pending on

the backlog of provisions on food additives

other than sweeteners and colours (called

sometimes “miscellaneous” food addi-

tives), with extra interpretative work on a

specific note applicable to smoke fish;

� Proposed draft provisions related to fluid

milk (plain) with comments on the techno-

logical need for the specific additive, the

specific type of food products within that

food category where the food additive is

used and the maximum level necessary to

reach the function of stabilizer, including a

specific review of technological purpose of

trisodium citrate in fluid milk (plain) other

than from cows and how GMP may be re-

placed with a numerical maximum level;

� Proposed draft provisions related to the re-

cently created new food category on other

fluid milk (plain)6;

� Some provisions in food categories subject

to standardized foods on processed fruits

and vegetables and edible oils, as well as

two food additives proposed for inclusion

in Table 3 of the GSFA(i.e. GMP use unless

otherwise regulated and not permitted) (i.e.

lutein esters from Tagetes erecta and

octenyl succinic acid (OSA)-modified gum

arabic);

� New provisions for inclusion at step 2 in the

GSFA as draft provisions and proposed re-

visions of other provisions already ap-

proved in GSFA.


FEATURE 21

5 With the exception of those additives provisions with technological functions of colour or sweetener, adipates, nitrites

and nitrates, and the provisions related to grape wines.

6 With the exception of food additives provisions with the function of colour and sweetener.

The CCFA50 plenary is also expected to review

other aspects and provisions for possible adoption

into GSFA, based on matters referred by other

committees. It will discuss the revised discussion

paper on nitrates and nitrites (raising more ques-

tions than suggesting solutions) as well as a new

discussion paper drafted by the Russian Federa-

tion. That discussion paper is expected to be inten-

sively debated because it is aiming at introducing

new and variable principles (subject to interpreta-

tion) for the use of food additives in what is defined

as “plain”, “fresh”, “untreated” and “processed”,

while suggesting new definitions for “unprocessed

food” (raw food or fresh food), “minimally pro-

cessed (plain) foods” in contrast to “ultra-pro-

cessed products”. It is likely that that discussion

paper will be further discussed in 2019.

Other, more classic, CCFA discussion items(Alignment, INS, JECFA, Endorsement)

� Alignment: very intense work performed

by Australia chairing the inter-session

EWG on Alignment

The CCFA50 plenary will review the future rec-

ommendations resulting from an expected in-ses-

sion working group to be created at the start of

CCFA50 plenary, itself based on the recommenda-

tions in the report of the inter-session electronic

working group on Alignment chaired by Australia.

These recommendations will aim at finalizing the

complete alignment between the food additive pro-

visions set in many Codex Alimentarius Commod-

ity Standards on Fish and Fishery Products and

those provisions included in the corresponding food

categories in the GSFA (adopted and draft). Align-

ment is one of the most important consistency work

undertaken by CCFA to ensure that in the long run

GSFA becomes the unique point of reference, in-

cluding into all Codex Alimentarius Commod-

ity/Food standards. For the moment, the dual system

is a source of misinterpretation and similar discrep-

ancies at national levels in case countries implement

both those food standards and the GSFA, containing

for the time being those inconsistencies.

� Review of JECFA past work, current rec-

ommendations for CCFA consideration

and CCFA decisions on next priorities of

work for JECFA in the next two years

As usual, CCFA will review the outcome of the

most recent JECFA meeting on food additives held

in June 2017 and consider whether any action may

be necessary. It is worth noting that JECFA has

re-evaluated two colours (Brilliant Blue FCF and

Fast Green FCF) and reaffirmed that both additives

do not raise any safety concern in terms of dietary

exposure. Meanwhile, JECFA is recommending

that the Group ADI for all carotenoids may be

re-evaluated in the light of the information pro-

vided about a new algal source of beta-carotene.

As part of a separate agenda item, CCFA50 will

also consider the various revised and new specifi-

cations that JECFA considers as completed (i.e.

named “Full”) for possible adoption as Codex re-

vised of new specifications for food additives7 (e.g.

silicon dioxide, sucrose esters of fatty acids, Tama-

rind seed polysaccharide, etc.). CCFA will also

consider temporary specifications (named “tenta-

tive”), not yet finalized regarding certain sub-

stances under JECFA review (e.g. Yeast extracts

containing mannoproteins, Oenological tannins,

etc.).

� CCFA50 to review proposed changes to the

INS from the outcome of an inter-session

EWG chaired by Iran and Belgium

As usual, CCFA50 will also review recommen-

dations from an in-session PWG for be announced

at the start of the plenary to review the proposed

changes to the INS laid down in the report of the

inter-session EWG on the INS8. Among other

things, it may include a new functional class for (a)

propylene glycol as a carrier and two correspond-

ing technological purposes, (b) mono- and di-gly-

cerides of fatty acids, as glazing agent and

surface-finishing agent, (c) gellan gum as a gelling

agent and (d) DL-malic acid as a sequestrant.

At that occasion, CCFA50 in session PWG may

also discuss whether it is time to distinguish the



7 For inclusion in a Codex standard called CAC/MISC 6. See the 2017 version at

http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/miscellaneous/en/. As such, CCFA does not develop its own

specifications for food additives (and flavourings) but rather adopt those developed by JECFA.

8 Class Names and International Numbering System on Food Additives (including a unique number, list of functional

classes and associated technological purposes)

source of a food additive (such as steviol

glycosides) depending on its mode of production

(by physical or chemical extraction and purifica-

tion, by fermentation, by production with the help

of genetically modified microorganisms, by chem-

ical reaction synthesis, etc.), in the context of the

INS. Therefore, it may also trigger questions on the

JECFA specifications as well. For sure, any rushed

decision into this matter may create a landmark

precedent which may possibly lead to revisiting

and requalifying other food additives, based on its

production method (e.g. tartaric acid versus

oenological tannins). This may be totally im-

pact-less at the Codex Alimentarius level given

that the INS is not viewed as relevant for labelling

purposes - but only allocates a unique reference

number to each food additive. However, it may di-

rectly influence the way food additives are required

to be labelled at national or regional level where

countries are using the INS for labelling purpose

and even more impactful in those countries which

imposes the INS number as a mandatory labelling

provision based on the latest Codex INS list. It may

also fuel – unintentionally – an undesirable debate

on how Codex may revisit the labelling settlement

reached on food or food ingredients obtained from

recombinant DNA (after nearly 15 years of negoti-

ations). INS and Class names are published once a

year as CAC/GL 36 (CXG 36). See 2017 version at

http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/c

odex-texts/guidelines/en/ It may also – and more

likely – directly influence the way food additives

are required to be labelled on marketed food’s lists

of ingredients at national and/or regional level(s).

� CCFA50 to endorse provisions for food ad-

ditives adopted in Codex food standards

elaborated by Codex Commodity

Committees

The CCFA50 will review the various specific

food additive (and processing aids) provisions for

endorsement that the Codex Commodity Commit-

tees and Regional Coordinating Committees found

technologically justified in the vertical food stan-

dards they have developed. As per its terms of ref-

erence, CCFA50 will review those provisions and

possibly endorse them, so that the food additive

section of those vertical standards would not im-

pede any future publication or adoption of those

food standards. So far, only the provisions for the

Near East Regional Standard on Doogh and for the

CCMMP Standard on Dairy Permeate Powders

(developed by correspondence) are available for

endorsement.

More details on CCFA50 are available on the webpage of the ses-

sion at www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/detail/

en/?meeting=CCFA&session=50


FEATURE 23

FEATURE

The forthcoming 12th meeting of theCodex Alimentarius Committee on

Contaminants (and Toxins) in Foods(CCCF12) has a loaded agenda, including

the adoption of new and revisedmaximum tolerable levels for

contaminants and toxins, such as lead,cadmium, methyl mercury, total

aflatoxins, and ochratoxin A in severalfoods. CCCF12 will also consider theadoption of two codes of practices

concerning the reduction of (i) dioxins,PCB-like dioxins, and (ii) 3-MCPD and

glycidyl esters in refined vegetable oilsand derived products, especially in infant

formulas. In addition, for the first time,CCCF12 will discuss a new guidance forrisk analysis of the inadvertent low level

presence of chemicals in food.Furthermore, CCCF12 will review several

discussion papers paving the way tocontinue working on other maximum

levels (i.e. hydrocyanic acid, lead,aflatoxins and sterigmatocystin) as wellas a code of practice for the prevention

and reduction of cadmium in cocoa(beans). Last, CCCF12 will address

possible actions, based on (i) feedbackfrom other Codex bodies, including theoutcome of the last relevant FAO/WHOJoint Expert Meeting on Food Additives

(JECFA)1.

Mr Christophe Leprêtre2

Mrs Katia Merten-Lentz3

The 12th session of the Codex Alimentarius

Committee on Contaminants (and Toxins) in foods

(CCCF) will be held in Utrecht (The Netherlands)

from 12 to 16 March 2018. CCCF is the Codex

Alimentarius horizontal committee in charge of the

update of the General Standard on Contaminants

and Toxins in Foods and therefore one of the most

important committees in establishing tolerable lev-

els for environmentally and industrially-sourced

contaminants in foods, as low as reasonably (i.e.

technically and economically) achievable to en-

sure acceptable protection of consumer health

while ensuring fair practices in international trade

of such foods4.

CCCF12 will take important decisions onregulatory limits for foods in internationaltrade of lead, cadmium, methyl mercury,

aflatoxins, ochratoxin A

� Lead

CCCF12 will consider the inclusion into the Co-

dex Alimentarius General Standard in Contami-

nants and Toxins in Food (GSCTF)5 of new

maximum tolerable limits (MLs) of lead in several

foods: (a) lowering the ML for (i) grape juice from

0.05 mg/kg to 0.04 mg/kg (20% reduction), (ii)

processed tomato concentrates from 1.5 mg/kg

(currently 0.05 mg/kg at Step 5) to 0.08 mg/kg

(about 47% reduction), (iii) mango chutney from 1

mg/kg to 0.3 mg/kg (70% reduction), (iv) wine

from 0.2 mg/kg to 0.05 mg/kg (75% reduction), (v)

food grade salt from 2 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg (50% re-

duction), (vi) fat spreads and blended spreads from

0.1 mg/kg to 0.04 mg/kg (60% reduction), (vii) ed-

ible fats and oils from 0.1 mg/kg to 0.07 mg/kg

(30% reduction); and (b) to include canned bras-

sica vegetables in the canned vegetables category

with a ML of 0.1 mg/kg; and, (c) establishing an

ML for fresh farmed mushrooms [common mush-


FEATURE 24

1 JECFA is the international risk assessment body dealing with contaminants and toxins (as well as veterinary drugs resi-

dues) in foods, in addition to food additives, but with different experts and meetings.

2 Food Engineer, Regulatory and Scientific Counsellor at Keller and Heckman LLP.

3 Food Law Attorney & Partner at Keller and Heckman LLP.

4 Neither CCCF nor CCFA regulate any specific and overall migration limit for any chemical used as technical ingredient

in food contact materials (themselves largely unregulated at the Codex level). This has been a void area of work at the inter-

national level, and by the Codex alimentarius Commission, up to now.

5 See latest version of the GSCTF (i.e. CODEX STAN 193) at

http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252

Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCODEX%2BSTAN%2B193-1995%252FCXS_193e.pdf

rooms (Agaricus bisporous), shiitake mushrooms

(Lentinula edodes), and oyster mushrooms

(Pleurotus)] of 0.2 mg/kg.

� Cadmium

CCCF12 will also review various proposals for

establishing maximum tolerable levels (MLs) for

Cadmium in chocolate products and other cocoa

products. Suggested levels range from 0.40 to 1.00

microgram per kilogram (µg/kg or ppb) in choco-

late products, from 0.4 to 1.2 µg/kg in dry mixtures

of cocoa and sugars, and 0.4 µg/kg in cocoa powder

intended for the final consumer. Note that the num-

ber of significant figures after the comma for each

level is very important in terms of methods of anal-

ysis robustness. Those MLs are meant to be appli-

cable to both the GSCTF standard and Codex

commodity standards regulating these foods.

�Methyl mercury in fish including associ-

ated sampling plans

CCCF12 will reconsider the recommendations

from an inter-session electronic working group

(EWG) to adopt specific revised MLs for methyl

mercury in fish – by far the primary source of

methyl mercury responsible for the neurological

Chisso-Minamata syndrome. The EWG recom-

mends two different bases for the establishment of

such MLs in various carnivore fish species (as

these fishes are at the top of the food chain in

oceans and are most likely to concentrate the high-

est levels of methyl mercury): either on the 95th

percentile or on the immediate next higher amount

leading to less than 5% rejection of lots. The two

different bases though lead to quite negligible dif-

ferences in the suggested ML values (thereafter the

suggested levels are reported as [P95]/[<5%]), as

follows: (a) 1.1/1.2 mg/kg (i.e. ppm) for all tunas or

1.3/1.4 mg/kg for Bigeye and Bluefin tunas and

0.7/0.8 mg/kg for tuna other than Bigeye and Blue-

fin; (b) 1.5/1.5 mg/kg for Alfonsino, (c) 1.6/1.7

mg/kg for Marlin or 4.5/4.6 mg/kg for Marlin

(based on Blue marlin, unspecified), (d) 0.7/0.8

mg/kg or no ML at all for Amberjack; (e) 1.5/1.6

mg/kg for Sharks; and, (f) 2.3/2.4 mg/kg for

Swordfish. The working document also describes

the associated sampling plans which are funda-

mental in terms on how the analytical results are

obtained and compared to the future MLs.

� Total aflatoxins limit in ready-to-eat pea-

nuts and associated sampling plan

CCCF12 will again review this long-standing

and contentious issue on the CCCF agenda. An

inter-session EWG led by India recommends the

adoption of an ML for total aflatoxins of 10 micro-

grams per kilogram (µg/kg or ppb) in ready-to-eat

peanuts for the final consumer. This proposed max-

imum limit value remains a very sensitive issue for

ready-to-eat peanuts producing countries, as vari-

ous climate and prophylactic conditions may lead

to different capacities to prevent growers from lim-

iting the developments of the moulds producing

those aflatoxins and matching that suggested limit

(especially the B1 type, one of the most carcino-

genic aflatoxins for human liver, especially for the

vulnerable group of humans carrying hepatitis B

virus). The other source of tension is linked to dif-

ferent limits set at national levels. Most of the pro-

ducing countries (but not all and that’s where the

competitive advantage may well be) are not ready

to accept a lower level for total aflatoxins in

ready-to-eat peanuts in the Codex Alimentarius, as

it may force those countries to subsequently lower

their national regulatory maximum level (this is a

WTO/SPS issue, as for all contaminants) and put

an extra-burden on their national producers wish-

ing to export on the global market. Future will tell

whether any compromise may be reached out on

this economically very sensitive issue.

� Total Aflatoxins and Ochratoxin Alimits in

some culinary herbs and spices

CCCF12 is to review the recommendations of

the inter-session EWG led by India on limits in

Nutmeg, Chili and Paprika, Ginger, Pepper and

Turmeric for (a) total aflatoxins at 20 or 30 micro-

grams per kilogram (µg/kg or ppb), whereby those

values seem still open for negotiation and for (b)

Ochratoxin Aat 20 µg/kg, where that value is a firm

recommended level by the EWG. This is related

also to the role of India as the host (and chairing)

country of the Codex Committee on Culinary

Herbs and Spices, developing vertical Codex com-

modity/food standards on these foods.

Codes of practices for the reduction of thepresence of industrial or environmental

contaminants

In addition, CCCF12 is exploring ways to de-

velop two new Codex Codes of Practice for the pre-

vention and reduction of the contamination of the

food chain by substances, coming either from envi-

ronmental sources (such as dioxins) or neo-formed


FEATURE 25

chemicals during processing (such as 3-MCPD and

refining of vegetable oils). The development of

such codes may be a valuable risk management al-

ternative to establishing maximum tolerable levels.

These codes are also necessary complementary

tools useful to comply with already existing and

any future possible maximum tolerable levels.

� Dioxins, PCB-like dioxins (DL-PCB),

non-PCB dioxin l ike substances

(NDL-PCB)

The working document is not yet available at the

time of going to press. However, CCCF12 is going

to review the recommendations of an inter-session

EWG led by the European Union to update the ex-

isting recommended practices to prevent the con-

tamination of the food chain with Dioxins and

PCB-like dioxins. The document is expected to add

new mitigation measures related to e.g. cooking

practice and carry-over from feed to food, and to

add new measures to those already detailed in the

discussion paper discussed at the 11th session of

CCCF. Those measures did include the following

recommendations (quoted from CCCF11 corre-

sponding working document):

(a) Inclusion of the outcome of the risk assess-

ment performed by JECFA80 in 2015 on

NDL-PCBs toxicity as well as the provisions de-

rived from the Stockholm Convention related to

PCBs under source directed measures.

(b) Reducing measures applicable to DL-PCBs

also applicable to NDL-PCBs.

(c) If necessary, completion of the Code of Prac-

tice for the Prevention and Reduction of Dioxin

and Dioxin-like PCB Contamination in Food and

Feeds (CAC/RCP 62-2006) with specific measures

for the prevention and reduction of NDL-PCBs in

feed and food.

(d) Inclusion of information on specific analyti-

cal methods/requirements for NDL-PCBs.

(e) Inclusion of specific recommendations pro-

vided on (direct) drying techniques and traceability

of the supply chain of fats and oils as experience

has shown that these sources could result in unac-

ceptable levels of dioxins and PCBs in feed and

food.

(f) Inclusion of relevant recent information on

the carry-over of dioxins and PCBs from feed into

food of animal origin.

(g) Inclusion of cooking practices reducing the

presence of dioxins and PCBs in food.

� 3-MCPDE and Glycidyl esters in refined

vegetable oils and their products thereof,

with special focus on infant formulas.

CCCF12 will consider a series of mitigation

measures developed by the edible vegetable oil in-

dustry in the past few years to minimize the pres-

ence of 3-MCPDE and glycidyl esters of fatty

acids, which were recently further evaluated by the

European Food Safety Authority6.

The working document was elaborated by an

inter-session EWG led by the USA and co-chaired

by the EU and Malaysia. It contains the full text of a

possible Codex Code of Practice which covers

better agricultural practices, sourcing recommen-

dations about raw edible oils, the processing and

refining of such edible oils, and other recommen-

dations for the controlled use of carefully selected

fats and oils in infant formulas. The draft Code of

Practice also includes two specific annexes, de-

scribing in detail the various mitigation measures

for each important key steps of the oil refining pro-

cessing and the adaptation thereof to each type of

oil and fat manufacturing plant. It has yet to be seen

how far the CCCF12 may review the document (in

part, fully, or not at all due to lack of time). The rec-

ommendations for infant formulas primarily em-

phasize the need to select carefully edible oils not

containing 3-MCPDE and glycidyl esters of fatty

acids or in minimized amounts.



6 EFSA opinion on MCPD and Glycidyl esters of fatty acids published in March 2016 and corrected in January 2018

available at https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4426. EFSA also published in January 2018 a new risk assess-

ment of these neo-formed chemicals, adopted in November 2017 and available at

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5083

Proposed draft guidelines to define the riskanalysis principles about the inadvertent lowlevel presence of chemicals in foods: is it a

way to change the paradigm of zero toleranceon presence of banned chemicals? Or a

confession of a lack of capacity to controlcertain pollutants already in the food chain?

Or simply to challenge the “below limit ofanalytical detection (LOD)” going lower and

lower with analytical methodsimprovements? or a way to cover up or

smoothen anything else not laid out clearlyyet in the paper?

The working document contains a complete first

draft of the future guidelines for risk analysis of

chemicals inadvertently present in food at low lev-

els. This text has been developed by an inter-ses-

sion EWG led by New Zealand and the

Netherlands. CCCF12 will consider (a) the estab-

lishment of a definition of an emerging contami-

nant, (b) the use of a cut-off value as an initial risk

management step (i.e. a kind of alert guidance level

triggering action), (c) internationally agreed rapid

risk assessment methodology to be used by coun-

tries, (d) the exclusion of feed from the proposed

draft guidelines scope, (e) the request to JECFA to

propose appropriate cut-off values and specific

questions for those risk assessment experts and (f)

the definition of the role JECFA may play in the

identification and review of the above-mentioned

rapid risk assessment methodology.

As laid out into the working document, these

guidelines are triggered by scientific progress on

the automatic lowering of the limit of detection of

analytical methods subject to constant technical

improvements. These progresses in analytical

chemistry have accelerated in the recent past in

such a way that now presence of chemical residues

and other chemicals can be demonstrated in the

food supply chain at very low levels. These im-

proved analytical methodologies may then show

the presence of substances undesirable in the food

chain, at much lower levels than the established

(national, regional or international) regulatory lim-

its or identify their presence whereas previously

they were considered as “absent” with older meth-

ods having higher LODs.

The working document is emphasizing the con-

cept of Threshold of Toxicological Concerns as a

primary screening tool. It provides for several in-

teresting examples of chemical types which may

fall under the definition of emerging contaminant:

e.g. (i) Greenhouse gas mitigation technology such

as chemicals used to address specific environmen-

tal and climate change-related issues, including ag-

riculture nitrification and urease inhibitors, which

have not been anticipated to be present in food; (ii)

Emerging contaminants from materials used dur-

ing processing of food such as non-regulated pack-

aging mater ia ls and print ing inks; or

oils/lubricants/resins used as manufacturing main-

tenance compounds; (iii) Emerging natural toxins

such as newly characterised mycotoxins or food

crop phytotoxins; (iv) Environmental contami-

nants such as corrosion inhibitors, flame retardants

and musks/fragrances.

These draft guidelines may pave the way to ad-

dress issues not covered by any specific Codex

Committee regulations, such as issues related to

food contact material migrations to food, presence

of microplastics, wide spread mineral hydrocar-

bons from environmental or industrial sources, e.g.

used as free-flow and anti-dust agent on grains

crops in storage silos, ports, etc…). But these

guidelines may also be relevant beyond the “con-

taminant” scope as it may cover the presence of res-

idues of undesirable veterinary drugs, pesticide

residues, or genetically modified transformation

event at the level of traces as well. The document

can be summarized with the decision-tree included

in the Annex 1 of the proposed draft guidelines, re-

produced in Figure 1, below.

For sure, this agenda item will constitute an im-

portant piece of the CCCF12 outcomes.

Discussion papers on possible new work

� Hydrocyanic acid and mycotoxins in cas-

sava and products thereof

The discussion paper was not available at the

time of going to press. This paper will review the

recommendations of the inter-session EWG led by

Nigeria regarding the need for including a specific

maximum tolerance limit for hydrocyanic acid in

cassava and products derived thereof (i.e. fer-

mented cassava products and cassava flour) into

the Codex GSCTF. Regarding mycotoxins in cas-

sava and derived products thereof, the discussion

paper will present the data available on the levels of

presence of these mycotoxins throughout Africa so

that CCCF12 may assess the level of risks and pro-

vide some guidance back to the Codex FAO/WHO

Regional Coordinating Committee for Africa.


FEATURE 27



Figure 1

� Other Lead limits

The final working document was also not avail-

able at the time of going to press of this article. This

paper was prepared by an inter-session EWG led by

Brazil to make priority recommendations to

CCCF12 to develop new maximum tolerable levels

to a wider scope of foods. However, based on the

second-round draft document, it seemed clear that

the intent is to cover a much wider scope of food

products where maximum tolerable limits may be

recommended as new work.

This discussion paper indicates a total shift in the

paradigm for regulating lead limits in the food

chain. For decades, the approach favored by CCCF

and national regulators has been to focus on those

foods contributing the most to the dietary exposure

of lead, while the discussion paper aims at a code of

practice for the reduction and prevention suggest-

ing lead limit in a much wider range of foods, some

of them arguably contributing insignificantly to

lead dietary exposure.

The discussion paper suggests several prioritiza-

tion criteria for approval by CCCF12. Based on

those criteria, Brazil-led EWG recommends the

tiered-approach for the development of new maxi-

mum tolerable levels for lead in three groups of

food categories as follows (the presenting order

also seems to matter):

High priority group: (i) cereal-based food for

infants and young children; (ii) fruit juice and

herbal tea for infants and young children; (iii)

canned baby food, (iv) tea and herbs/fruits for infu-

sions, (v) food supplements, (vi) Cocoa and cocoa

products, (vii) seafood (except fish), (viii) dried

fruits, (ix) processed fish.

Intermediate priority group: (i) eggs, (ii) algae

and seaweeds, (iii) nuts and oilseeds, (iv) sugar and

confectionery (excluding cocoa), (v) flours and

starches, (vi) dried vegetables, (vii) spices and aro-

matic herbs (to be likely addressed jointly with the

CCCHS), (viii) alcoholic beverages (except wine),

(ix) coffee and coffee-based beverages.

Low priority group: (i) stalk vegetables, (ii)

vegetable juice (likely to be addressed jointly with

CCPFV), (iii) ice cream, and (iv) non-alcoholic

beverages.

The discussion paper calls upon Codex Mem-

bers to submit more data of lead occurrences in the

above prioritized food categories to feed the WHO

GEMS/Foods database. It also calls for Codex

Members to flag up any other food category which

may be relevant to be added to the priority lists

based on data to be communicated to WHO (and

FAO).

� Aflatoxins and sterigmatocystin in cereals

The working document includes a project docu-

ment for consideration by CCCF12 suggesting the

development of specific maximum presence levels

for aflatoxins (including aflatoxin B1) and

sterigmatocystin, for e.g. sorghum, rice and wheat

and their derived products thereof. More specifi-

cally, the discussion paper recommends to

CCCF12 to develop (a) a maximum tolerable level

for aflatoxins in cereal, cereal-based products and

food for infants and small children; (b) specific

maximum tolerable levels for other cereal food

groups if data available at the time show it is essen-

tial to do so; (c) encourage standards development

organizations to provide a validated method of

analysis for sterigmatocystin; and, (d) discuss

whether there are specific management practices

for sterigmatocystin in cereals, intended to be in-

cluded as an annex to the revised Code of practice

for the prevention and reduction of mycotoxin con-

tamination in cereals.

� Prevention and reduction of cadmium in

cocoa (beans)

An inter-session EWG led by Peru to revise the

discussion paper on the development of a Code of

Practice for the prevention and reduction of the

presence of cadmium in cocoa and in cocoa-de-

rived products. The code of practice aims at focus-

ing primarily on good agriculture practices and

identification of potential sources of cadmium,

both naturally present in soils where cocoa planta-

tions are located or due to industrial pollution. The

discussion paper emphasizes the need to cost-bene-

fit assessment before implementing any stringent

risk management measures. The discussion paper

insists also on accompanying the training of cocoa

farmers, growers, collectors and traders to the issue

of Cadmium. It insists on a progressive implemen-

tation of any available mitigation measure and fur-

ther research on other possible mitigation

measures. The discussion paper flags up the need to

improve primary production and processing, in im-

proving infrastructures and equipment used for the

fermentation and the drying process with modules

adapted to tropical environment conditions. The


FEATURE 29

lack of laboratories officially accredited for cad-

mium testing is also underlined as a limiting factor

for the good implementation of mitigation mea-

sures. CCCF12 is invited to consider a process

whereby it would regularly survey validated best

practices (i.e. “on farm assessments that gave good

results and were profitable”) to improve the discus-

sion on the future Codex Code of Practice, and ide-

ally conduct such a preliminary survey prior to

starting a new work on developing such a Code of

Practice. It is expected that the guidelines and re-

search on mitigation measures performed by the

Food And Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) would be a great help in that regard.

CCCF12 to endorse provisions forcontaminants included in Codex food

standards elaborated by Codex CommodityCommittees

CCCF12 is asked to respond to the Codex

Alimentarius Commission on whether the maxi-

mum tolerable levels for the contaminants regu-

lated in the Codex GSCTF applicable to cereals do

or do not apply to Quinoa (as Quinoa is subject to a

Codex commodity standard) and if not, what levels

would apply then.

CCCF12 Priorities for future work of JECFAon contaminants

The CCCF12 will reconvene an in-session

working group to discuss a list of further priorities

for JECFA review and what type of work to be car-

ried out. For example, CCCF11 last year asked

JECFA to proceed to full evaluations of (i) dioxins,

(ii) arsenic (inorganic), (iii) scopoletin (in relation

to Noni Juice consumption), (iv) ergot alkaloids,

(v) ciguatoxins, and (vi) an updated risk assess-

ment, including exposure assessment, of myco-

toxins trichothecenes (T2 and HT2).

More details on CCCF12 are available on the webpage of the ses-

sion at www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/detail/

en/?meeting=CCCF&session=12

More details about CCCF12 outcome will be present in WFRR’s

March issue.



INTERNATIONAL

Global Food SafetyConference 2018

Action on food safety to be central focus ofGFSI Global Food Safety Conference 2018

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), a

worldwide project to advance food safety and im-

prove consumer trust, held its annual conference in

Tokyo, Japan, 5-8 March 2018, bringing represen-

tatives of the world’s biggest food companies to-

gether to discuss industry challenges. The theme

for 2018 was “safe food for consumers every-

where”. The event took a stronger implementation

approach, aiming to provide practical insights for

attendees.

Speakers included the CEOs of AEON, Costco,

McDonald’s Japan, DeVries Global and the UK

Food Safety Agency (FSA). The event promised to

offer a diverse range of perspectives on the most

pressing food safety issues. Topics on the agenda

included shifting food trends, millennial consump-

tion patterns, artisan foods, supply chain manage-

ment and Japanese food culture. The annual

conference aims to generate awareness of food

safety and encourage innovation, while enabling

attendees to network with the most important fig-

ures in the FMCG sector. The organisers describe it

as a “must-attend event” for anyone seeking to un-

derstand more about food safety.

Consumer trust has never been more important,

which is why food safety is now top of the agenda

for FMCG giants. Scandals over food quality can

pose serious reputational risks to brands and result

in consumers looking elsewhere for their goods.

Since 2000, the GFSI has focussed on fostering in-

dustry collaboration, driving change through stra-

tegic initiatives involving representatives from

across the food industry, providing expert consul-

tancy and encouraging industry excellence through

its Benchmarking Requirements.

Pr ior to the Conference, Veronique

Discours-Buhot, GFSI Director at The Consumer

Goods Forum, expressed excitement about the

event. “We’re looking forward to holding the GFSI

conference in Tokyo; a global city renowned for its

booming food industry and fine cuisine. The event

provides us with the opportunity to engage with

business leaders about the importance of food

safety and delivering safe food for consumers ev-

erywhere. We’re looking forward to hearing about

the most innovative initiatives and our members’

perceptions of what the future holds.”

Ken Theriault, CEO, Costco, said “we’re look-

ing forward to this year’s Global Food Safety Con-

ference and learning more about the great food

safety work that’s been going on over the last year

across the sector. We have worked with GFSI for

many years now and have found it to be a unique

forum for understanding more about food safety

and learning about the most innovative approaches

to the relevant issues. Whether it’s managing sup-

ply chains, engaging with regulators, or responding

to new consumption patterns, GFSI is a critical

voice for our industry.”

Motoya Okada, CEO, AEON, also expressed

optimism about this year’s Global Food Safety

Conference, saying “At AEON we take food safety

very seriously, which is why I’m delighted to be

speaking at this year’s event. While we are seeing a

lot of progress made on the issue, more work needs

to be done. Corporate leaders have a huge role to

play, which is why I’m looking forward to discuss-

ing the potential for CEOs to drive cultural change,

as well as the impact of food safety culture”.

GFFA: “Significant Milestone”on Road to Sustainable,

Efficient Animal Husbandry

In adopting the communiqué of the 10th Berlin

Agriculture Ministers Conference, the participant

ministers from 69 states, as well as representatives

of the European Commission (EC) and of interna-

tional organisations such as the World Organisa-

tion for Animal Health (OIE) and the United

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO), have “committed themselves to responsi-

ble and sustainable” animal husbandry.

Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture,

Christian Schmidt, said “Sustainable handling of



animals in the production of food of animal origin

is one of the central challenges of our time. Live-

stock husbandry will play an important role in the

development of the world’s population in a number

of different ways. The global population’s nutri-

tional status, the economic prosperity of rural re-

gions, and the impact on the climate and the

environment are just some of the factors where in-

terests need to be weighed and a fair and just bal-

ance struck. Another key issue is animal health and

its mutual dependence with human health. This be-

comes particularly evident in the context of

zoonoses and the issues surrounding resistance to

antimicrobials. This is why we have resolved, in

our final communiqué, to strengthen our efforts

worldwide to combat the unnecessary use of

antimicrobials as growth promoters in livestock

husbandry. We also want to enhance resource con-

servation in the animal husbandry sector. Site-spe-

cific, regionally adapted solutions need to be

found. Modern production techniques, new tech-

nologies and the transfer of know-how are the key

to developing livestock husbandry into a sustain-

able and efficient sector.

“Animal husbandry also plays a particularly im-

portant role in the context of reaching the

sustainability goals set out in the United Nations

2030 Agenda. This particularly applies to the

so-called SDG 2, which aims to end hunger,

achieve food security, improve nutrition and pro-

mote sustainable agriculture. With the communi-

qué that we have adopted today, we have

committed ourselves to this and are at the same

time contrib-uting to the implementation of the

2030 Agenda."

Background

The Global Forum for Food and Agriculture

(GFFA) took place this year for the tenth time. Its

political climax is the Berlin Agriculture Ministers

Conference – billed as the world’s largest meeting

of agriculture ministers. At the invitation of the

Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture, agricul-

ture ministers from all over the globe discuss the

key issues for the future of the global food and agri-

cultural sector. The motto this year is: Shaping the

future of livestock – sustainably, responsibly,

efficiently.

In their final communiqué, the agriculture min-

isters reaffirmed their will to “promote sustainable

animal husbandry and commit themselves to re-

sponsible and efficient animal production”. They

identified four central challenges that must be rec-

onciled with one another: food security; improving

livelihoods; protection of resources, the climate

and the environment; and improvement of animal

health and welfare.

See www.bmel.de/GFFA-Kommunique_2018_EN.html



Documents

Vol. 27, Number 9 February 2018gory coconut milk products fall into for food addi-tive permissions. “FSANZ is proposing to create a new category to ensure regulatory certainty so