WHO WILL ASSESS THE HONESTY OF THE ASSESSORS?-THE FOOD SAFETY ISSUE

Over 7 billion people in this planet depend on a dozen or so food safety agencies, national as well as international to guide them to buy safe foods in the market. These include WHO, FAO, the FDA, EFSA, FSA of UK etc and these organizations are supposed to be staffed with unbiased experts in food toxicology, food chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology and other complimentary scientific disciplines. While under normal circumstances no one doubts the integrity of these experts, to day questions regarding their bias is raised too frequently to be ignored easily. Probably this has happened because of the enormous financial and political clout some of the multinational food giants wield over the governments in many countries. This results in distorted decisions, delayed decisions and no decision at all in many cases. Here is an account of the ground reality that exists to day in Europe and the serious question raised regarding the integrity of the agency that is supposed to sit in judgment over the safety data submitted by the industry which often goes in favor of the latter in majority of cases.

The incisive article below on the food sweetener aspartame precisely nails the problem of scientific decision making at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA accepts weak industry data claiming safety for a risky product, but relentlessly finds fault with and dismisses independent scientific studies that find risk. The 2012 study of Prof G-E Seralini and team on GM maize and Roundup is one example among many of a carefully designed and conducted study that found risk but which was dismissed by EFSA. Other examples include shedloads of independent studies showing risks from the plastics chemical bisphenol A, which EFSA dismissed in favour of a few industry-funded studies claiming safety. This asymmetric scrutiny is applied by EFSA on a regular basis, as confirmed in an interview with former EFSA GMO panel member Prof. Joachim Schiemann, who said of EFSA's scrutiny of the scientific literature on GMOs: "Of course, studies that describe potential negative environmental effects of GMOs are discussed particularly intensively."(http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/622.efsa-members-gmo panel.html). According to a study by food policy expert Erik Millstone and colleagues, this practice is interpreted by the European public as an illegitimate support for the biotechnology industry on the part of the supposedly impartial risk assessor.  Millstone and colleagues state, "greater institutional care was taken to try to avoid false positives [when a study finds risk from a product that's really safe] than to avoid false negatives [when a study claims safety for a product that is actually not safe]. That implies that critical scrutiny has been applied in an asymmetrical fashion that prima facie seems difficult to reconcile with a precautionary approach". (Millstone E, van Zwanenberg P, Marris C, Levidow L, Torgersen H: Science in Trade Disputes Related to Potential Risks: Comparative Case Studies. Seville: European Commission; 2004.).  EFSA is not alone in this practice of asymmetric scrutiny of scientific studies: it's fairly universal among regulatory agencies worldwide. A major problem with EFSA, as Millstone says in the article below, is that many of the experts that write EFSA opinions have direct or indirect conflicts of interest with industry.

Interestingly some of these agencies are so indebted to the industry that they are totally blind to the welfare and safety of their constituency, viz the consumers. Witness the struggle going on in the US where a substantial segment of the population want clear declaration of presence of GM ingredients in foods marketed, under their "right to know" what they are eating, on the front of the pack. The President as well as the law making bodies in that country continue to dither without taking any decision lest they will adversely hurt the interests of industry! Even assuming that GM foods are absolutely safe, what harm is there if the same is declared on the label like what is in vogue in other countries which have cleared some of the GM foods. It is easy for the US to do this because if such a law is enforced to day more than 85% of the products in the market will carry such a declaration! An unintended consequence of such a policy of procrastination on the part of the governments, will be to discourage honest scientists from pursuing independent studies in food safety area, lest they will be targets for unfair criticism by the industry and fellow scientists who may be on the pay roll of the industry! Consumers world over must rise against such a situation and take non-violent action to impress on the industry that it cannot ignore their interests any more.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"PREDICT" SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING SUSPECTED FOODS-THE US SYSTEM

In to day's world no country is 100% self reliant as far as food is concerned which necessitates imports from where ever available. These imported foods are supposed to conform to the standards of quality and safety imposed by the importing countries and when rejected the consignments are either destroyed or sent back. If a country is large like the US the logistics of import inspection and assessment can be quite daunting. While random sampling or picking samples based on statistical analysis is common, the US has adopted a model for picking up samples for detailed assessment called PREDICT. Here are some of the features of the system

Which shipments get inspected is increasingly determined by a new computer system called PREDICT, or Predictive Risk-based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting, that is now used at 70 percent of U.S. import operations at land, sea and air ports. It analyzes information such as a manufacturer's history with the agency, lab test results and even current weather patterns, assigning a risk-based score to each shipment to direct investigators toward the riskiest ones. After a shipment is flagged, it's up to a person to investigate further. Investigators give top priority to the items with the highest scores and work their way down — at least, to the point they can with limited staff. This summer, the FDA gave News21 unusual behind-the-scenes access at its largest operating district to show the ways in which front-line operations attempt to keep unsafe food from reaching American supermarket shelves and dinner tables. Sensory tests- "The Nose" prepares to sniff his way down a mahi-mahi fillet. Steve Angold works out of a narrow lab at the FDA's new $40 million testing facility in Irvine, Calif. He is one of about 25 FDA specialists across the country who rely on their senses of sight, touch, taste and smell to detect decomposition or filth in food products.

What is surprising is that human intervention is still necessary in spotting "bad" shipments and confirmation arrives after laboratory analyses. Imagine the logistical nightmare involved in clearing 24 million shipments annually and though actual testing takes place with less than 2% of the consignments arriving at various ports, the system seems to be working satisfactorily. Critics point out that this proportion is too small and there is potential danger in future if the testing regime is not expanded. Fact still remains that almost all food related poisoning episodes occurring in that country originated from within its own boundaries, not from foreign shipments. One has to appreciate that besides the facilities abroad, from where foods are imported, are inspected frequently by the US officials and those not coming up to the standard are blacklisted on a regular basis. Added to this, all food exporting countries have their own food safety monitoring system ensuring that there is double safety as far as imported foods are concerned.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE "THREE SECOND" SAFETY ASSESSMENT WIZARD!

Food safety dangers emanating from pathogenic microorganisms are becoming more and more serious in spite of tremendous advances made by the processing industry and the QC instrument manufacturers. Microbes of different types pose different dangers with varying consequences and their detection in processed foods before releasing into the market is vital for the survival of the industry as well as to avoid health risks to the consumer. Classical testing methods are laborious and time consuming though they are simple to perform. Many quick testing instruments have come into the market to cut down the time between testing and launching. The latest to arrive on the scene is the FoodScan series from Israel, claiming to do the job almost instantly.

"Based on an array of High Frequency Quartz Crystal Microbalance (HGQ-CM) sensors and coatings, the technology from MS Tech provides high sensitivity and selectivity in detecting target molecules and can tell you whether or not your food is contaminated in three seconds flat. Weighing in at just 800 grams and the size of about two iphones, FoodScan 3000 is integrated with HF-QCM sensors that are embedded with smart detection algorithms. The surface of each sensor has a chemical coating that is sensitive to different families of target molecules".

Probably the food industry in India can benefit much from such a device as the facilities for microbiological testing are far and few. The traditional plating and culturing techniques take enormous time and reliability is not 100%. If the cost of procuring such instruments is high, MFPI of GOI must step in to help the industry with financial incentives to procure them. At least safety assessment laboratories under the Ministry of Health should have these instruments to block release of tainted products into the market with minimum loss of time

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com