International farmtoprocessing microbial food safety programs: How does Canada compare

1
International farm-to-processing microbial food
safety programs How does Canada compare?
A. Rajic, L. Fry, J. Sargeant and S. Read Policy
Advice Effectiveness Program Laboratory for
Foodborne Zoonoses - Guelph Public Health Agency
of Canada
2
Study Collaborators

• Policy Advice Effectiveness Program Laboratory
  for Foodborne Zoonoses
• Public Health Agency of Canada
• Food Policy Integration Unit
• Food Directorate
• Health Canada

3
Study Objectives

• Review farm-to-processing microbial food safety
  (MFS) programs policies in Canada, United
  States, European Union, Australia New Zealand
  (beef, swine poultry)
• Dairy, eggs, seafood other commodities
• (beyond the scope - financial constraints)
• Compare their approaches
• Similarities differences
• Major drivers in developing MFS policies
  programs

4
Study Methodology

• Comprehensive literature search
• Targeted search terms
• Targeted databases
• Medical, Agricultural Veterinary Science
• Internet Searches
• Government Databases
• Contacting officials

5
Brief overview of farm-to-processing MFS
policies programs in Canada
Canada
6
Processing
Canada

• HACCP (federal plants)
• HACCP-related verification tools
• Salmonella performance standards
• Generic E. coli testing
• E. coli O157 in ground meat products
• L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meats
• HACCP/Microbial testing controversy?

7
Farm level
Canada

• Voluntary development of Canadian On-Farm Food
  Safety (COFFS) programs by national commodity
  groups
• CFIA approval of the programs
• Federal provincial territorial governments
  agri-food industry partnership

8
COFFS Programs
Canada

• 19 commodity group programs
• The Quality Starts Here (beef)
• Canadian Quality Assurance (pork)
• Safe, Safer, Safest (poultry)
• Similar principles good production practices
• Each program designed for a specific commodity
  needs

9
Basic Principles
Canada

• Purchasing Animals Feed
• Animal Handling
• Sanitation Building Design
• Medical Supplies
• Water
• Biosecurity
• Marketing Transport
• Personnel Training

10
Prioritized Microbial Hazards
Canada

• The Quality Starts Here (beef)
• E. coli O157, Salmonella, Cysticercosis,
  Cryptosporidiosis, Giardiasis Johnes Disease
• Canadian Quality Assurance (swine)
• Salmonella, Yersinia, Trichinella
• Safe, Safer, Safest (poultry)
• There is little evidence that contamination
  leads to a higher food risk so specific pathogens
  are not dealt with
• No targeted on-farm MFS programs in place
• Some exceptions in practice e.g. Salmonella
  control in pigs in Quebec

11
Brief overview of farm-to-processing MFS
policies programs in the European Union
12
Unique Region
European Union

• Major player in developing MFS policies
  programs
• 25 member-states
• Different socio-economic development, agri-food
  industry, animal health food safety
  infrastructure
• New General Food Law
• To be adopted by all member states
• Challenges!

13
Approach to MFS
European Union

• Gate-to-plate
• Driven by consumer preferences
• Transparency
• Traceability throughout the food chain
• HACCP at processing/verification testing
• New Zoonoses Legislation
• Priority Salmonella/primary production
• Campylobacter, L. monocytogenes, Verotoxigenic E.
  coli, Cryptosporidium, Echinococcus granulosus,
  T. spiralis AMR
• Food Safety Objectives

14
Farm-level programs
European Union

• Comprehensive, targeted programs against
  Salmonella in poultry swine in Denmark, Sweden
  the Netherlands
• Some member-states have only certain program
  components in place
• Other member-states to initiate baseline
  monitoring studies in this area

15
Brief overview of farm-to-processing MFS
policies programs in the USA
16
Approach to MFS
United States

• Major player in developing MFS policies
  programs
• Intensive government involvement in food safety
• Basic principles
• Transparency
• Science-based approach
• Long term public health goals
• Focus at the processing level

17
Processing
United States

• US Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis Critical
  Control Points Program (PR/HACCP)
• Baseline surveys in the 1990s
• Performance standards developed - HACCP
  verification tools
• Food Safety Objectives in future

18
PR/HACCP implementation update
United States

• Recent CDCs reports indicate ? 21 in foodborne
  illness since 1998
• At the plant level FSISs reports indicate ?
  contamination rates
• ? Salmonella on red meat - 10.7 ? 3.6
• ? E. coli O157H7 on carcasses - 0.82 ? 0.32

19
Similarities Differences
20
Similarities Differences
Overall Approach to MFS

• Overall goal
• Reduce foodborne illness in humans
• Farm -To-Fork concept
• Shared responsibilities among stakeholders
• Improved surveillance
• Traceability product tracing
• MFS programs/policies at processing
• HACCP/verification tools
• Financial challenges
• Government vs. industry?

21
Similarities Differences
Overall approach to MFS

• USA
• Focus at processing
• More stringent standards expected
• No formally recognized on-farm food safety
  programs
• EU
• Control at processing
• Focus primary production level/Salmonella
• Canada
• Adopted US policies at processing/OFFS programs
• GPP principles - No targeted MFS programs at the
  farm level

22
Similarities Differences
Targeted Prioritized Pathogens

• Campylobacter, Salmonella, VTEC or E. coli O157,
  L. monocytogenes
• Prioritization criteria
• Overall prevalence of human illness due to a
  pathogen
• Food safety incidents, outbreaks (crises)
• Trade impact on the agri-food industry

23
General Drivers of MFS programs
Similarities Differences

• Consumer demands (national international)
• Food safety incidents (national international)
• Trade demands (national international)

24
Impact of national drivers
Similarities Differences

• European Union
• BSE other food safety issues
• ? trust in government
• Precautionary Principle
• Food Safety Legislation
• USA
• E. coli O157 L. monocytogenes
• New approach to food safety
• ? government involvement in food safety
• ? trust in government

25
Canada
Canada reactionary approach?
Successes of other nations food safety programs
Consumer demands Inter-Industry demands
Canadian decision policy makers
The burden of foodborne illness in Canada
Pressures from export partners
26
Driving Forces/Challenges in Future
Similarities Differences

• ? consumer demands
• ? global changes in attitudes towards agri-food
  industry
• ? changes in the governments role
• vs. agri-food industrys role
• ? impact of advances in technology
• Funding?

27
Recommendations

• Canada should consider more proactive
  transparent approach that would benefit the
  public health of Canadians
• Ensure Canadians have access to the imported
  foods of highest quality food safety
• Maintain enhance the Canadian agri-food exports

28
Recommendations

• Establish multi-disciplinary, multi-sector
  framework for developing MFS programs policies
• Valid integrated surveillance data, and sound
  science
• Establish and/or enhance existing surveillance
  systems for zoonotic pathogens throughout the
  food chain
• Adopt efficacious cost-effective strategies
  using evidence-based risk prioritization
  scientific tools

29
Comments Questions?