Final Report of WS on use of science4 1. Introduction The FAO/WHO regional workshop on the Use of...
40
1 FAO/WHO Regional Workshop on the “Use of Science throughout the Food Chain for Safe Foods” Bali, Indonesia, 18 – 20 November 2010 REPORT
Transcript of Final Report of WS on use of science4 1. Introduction The FAO/WHO regional workshop on the Use of...
1
FAO/WHO Regional Workshop on
the “Use of Science throughout the Food Chain for Safe Foods”
Bali, Indonesia, 18 – 20 November 2010
REPORT
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The FAO/WHO Project and Fund for Enhanced Participation in Codex would like to express their appreciation to the Government of Indonesia for hosting the training course in Denpasar, Bali. Though the training course was originally scheduled to be held in Yogjakata, it had to be shifted to Denpasar, at short notice due to factors beyond human control. Thanks are given to all course participants for their active and enthusiastic participation throughout the course. Gratitude is also extended to all resource persons who participated in the workshop. These include Messer’s Shashi Sareen, (FAORAP), Sharad Adhikary (WHO, Indonesia), Steve J Crossley (Food Standards Australia New Zealand), Knud Ostergaard (Codex Vice Chair), Heesun Kim (Codex Secretariat), Jeeraratan Thesasilpa (FDA, Thailand), E. Hinoshita (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan), Gilberto Layese (Bureau of Agriculture & Fishery Products Standards, Philippines), and Ramesh V Bhat (Independent International Consultant, India, Lead Trainer). Thanks are also due to staff of the FAO/WHO who provided technical support in planning the technical content of the programme and Codex Trust Fund for providing logistic support.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... ……. 4 2. TARGET AUDIENCE, OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE REGIONAL WORKSHOP……….. 4 3. OPENING CEREMONY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 4. PARTICIPANT EXPECTATIONS.................................................................................................... . 5 5. PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS.................................................................................................. 6 6. PRACTICAL EXERCISES: 6.1 WORKING GROUP SESSION 1. Different approaches for use of scientific advice for Development of standards…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 6.2 ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION: Identify ways to implement risk based inspection and inspection frequencies .…………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………….. 13 6.3 WORKSHOP 1: Enhancing the role of Developing countries in providing scientific advice to Codex… 15 6.4 WORKING GROUP SESSION 2 : Identification of food safety threats in the region………………………. 16 6.5 WORKSHOP 2 Identifying priority needs on building scientific capacity and action plan for the same at national and regional levels……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 6.6 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PRACTICAL EXERCIES REPRESENTING THE COLLECTIVE VIEW OF PARTICIPANTS 18 7. COURSE EVALUATION...................................................................................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20 8. CLOSING CEREMONY................................................................................................................ 20 9. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 ANNEX 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND RESOURCE PERSONS...................................................,..….…….. 22 ANNEX 2 PROGRAMME................................................................................................................... 29 ANNEX 3 COURSE EVALUATION PERFORMA …………………………………………………………………………………… 34
4
1. Introduction
The FAO/WHO regional workshop on the Use of Science throughout the food chain for food safety was held in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia during November 18-20, 2010. The workshop was supported by the Codex Trust Fund. Additional support was provided to the participants by the Codex Trust Fund to allow them to stay on for the 17th Session of the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for Asia (Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, 22 - 26 November 2010). The Government of Indonesia kindly hosted the training course. The training course was attended by 32 participants from 16 countries viz., Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, DPR Korea, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Peoples Republic of China, Philippines, Republic of Maldives, Thailand, Viet Nam and one representative each from European Food Law Association, FAO Rome and WHO Indonesia. The training team resource persons and support staff consisted of: Mr. Steve Crossley (Food Standards Australia New Zealand), Dr.E. Hinoshita (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan),Mr. Gilberto Layese (Bureau of Agriculture & Fishery Products Standards, Philippines), Dr.Knud Ostergaard (Codex Vice Chair), Dr. Ramesh V Bhat (Independent International Consultant, India, Lead trainer), Ms. Jeeraratan Thesasila (FDA, Thailand), Ms. Shashi Sareen, (FAORAP, Bangkok), Mr. Sharad Adhikary (WHO, Indonesia) and Ms.Heesun Kim (Codex Secretariat, Rome). In addition one of the participants, Ms. Shariza Zainol Rashid (Ministry of Malaysia) also delivered a presentation. The list of participants, trainers, resource persons and support staff is attached in Annex 1. 2. Target audience, Objectives, Expected Outcomes of the Regional workshop and Programme Target audience : Risk Managers in Asian countries
Objectives:
‐ To understand the process and the usefulness of various scientific advice (including FAO/WHO scientific advice) for the use of and application of scientific and risk-based approach to national standards setting and food control systems across the entire chain for ensuring a safe food; and
‐ To evolve Regional priorities of scientific advice for food control throughout the food chain to enhance food safety and address issues of harmonization with Codex process
Outcomes:
• Awareness on the work in the area of science advice for standards formulation FAO/WHO Other countries including in the Region
• Sharing experiences of successful national and regional activities in the area of science advice vis a vis elaboration of scientific advice by FAO/WHO for development of Codex texts
• Increased awareness of capacity enhancing avenues available in relation to scientific and risk based activities for better communication and priority identifications
• Strengthened decision making process in food safety at National and regional levels
5
• Identification of regional priorities of scientific advice in Asia for further discussion in Codex sessions
Programme The programme consisted of six themes which included presentations, case studies and practical sessions consisting of work group discussions , workshop sessions, round table discussions with contributions mostly by the participants. The six themes were as follows:
1. Introduction of concepts on scientific advice
2. Country/ Regional experiences on implementing a science-based approach based on Codex work
3. The use of Science in Food Control programmes - inspection & certification The use of Science in Food Control programmes - inspection and certification
4. Importance of Information gathering (including use of scientific data) and Analysis for a scientific basis and Communication
5. New and Emerging Issues for formulation of scientific advice
6. Capacity Enhancing at Regional and National Levels
The detailed programme is at Annex 2.
5. Presentations and discussions
Theme 1: Introduction of concepts on Science advice
The basic objective of the theme was to introduce the concepts of science advice for safe foods through out the food chain. A presentation on Risk Analysis in Public health and International Trade in Food: Introducing the Risk analysis concept was presented by Mr. Steve J Crossley (on behalf of Dr Peter K. Ben Embarek of WHO, who was unable to participate). In this talk, the major concerns of food borne diseases, the need to regulate the trade nationally and internationally and the role played by Codex , the various risk analysis tools to address these items and the provision of scientific advice as a shared responsibility of Government, industry and the consumer were addressed. Adequate coverage of the components of Risk assessments, risk management and risk communications were covered for the benefit of participants.
‘The use of scientific advice for safe foods’ covering the principles, concepts including strengthening national food control systems through risk analysis and science was covered by Ms Shashi Sareen in her presentation. The focus areas where science plays an important role for food safety were highlighted to cover standards setting, risk-based preventative systems approach–GMP/ HACCP, food borne disease
6
surveillance & data, monitoring & surveillance of food controls, data & Information collection & exchanges/ communication, fFood emergencies & recalls, recognition and equivalence agreements, voluntary standards and certification and trainings. She elaborated the link of scientific advice with Codex, FAO/ WHO and the WTO and explained the inter-relationships between the work of these bodies. The basic principles of scientific advice such as soundness, responsibility, objectivity, fairness, transparency and inclusiveness, as well as the core objectives such as providing expert scientific advice, disseminating scientific advice, strengthening national scientific capacity, building scientific communities and net work and ensuring sustainability and measuring success, were explained by her. Some priority areas identified in the’Science for safe foods strategy of FAO (2010-2013) were also highlighted.
Dr Heesun Kim provided an overview of the mechanism of scientific advice including the role of various Science based expert committees of the FAO/WHO. FAO/WHO scientific advice is provided to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and FAO and WHO member countries by independent expert bodies, including (i) the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on Food Additives and Contaminants (JECFA) for food additives, contaminants and veterinary drug residues; (ii) the Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) for pesticide residues; (iii) the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) for microbiological hazards; and (iv) ad hoc expert consultations for specific issues not covered by the above mentioned standing panels. The requests for scientific advice are routinely proposed through various Codex subsidiary bodies, such as Codex Committees and FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees. For chemical hazards, JECFA and JMPR normally establish Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs), Provisional Maximum Tolerable Daily Intakes (PMTDIs), Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intakes (PTWIs) or Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) on the basis of toxicological and other relevant information. In the case of microbiological hazards, JEMRA provides scientific opinion on the likelihood of adverse health effects occurring after exposure to a pathogenic microorganism or to a medium in which the microorganism occurs.
The work of these expert bodies are an essential basis for Codex-decision making process and have been of great value in determining the most effective intervention strategies for chemical and biological hazards in foods in both developing and developed countries. To date, JECFA has evaluated approximately 2500 food additives, 40 contaminants and 95 residues of veterinary drugs; JMPR has evaluated over 250 pesticides; and JEMRA has dealt with several microbiological risk assessments. Countries are strongly encouraged to contribute to the FAO/WHO scientific advice by generating relevant country data and responding to calls for data and experts in order for FAO/WHO scientific advice to adhere to the core principles for risk assessment of objectivity, transparency and inclusiveness and to facilitate geographical, cultural and gender balance of experts in addition to their technical and scientific qualification.
Participants actively discussed the theme by posing questions such as whether any survey has been conducted on risk assessment being followed in Asian countries, role of single versus multiple agencies in food control, etc.
Theme 2 Country / Regional experiences in implementing a science- based approach based on Codex work
7
The session of Theme two was designed to have country and regional experiences. Delivering the first tal, Ms Jiraratana Thesasilpa presented a case study on control measures for melamine in Thailand. She outlined the measures taken for safety of consumers in Thailand such as import control, monitoring at premises, surveillance at market place, setting up of regulation and the coordination and communication by the ministry of Public Health. She informed that during a one-year period in 2008-2009 in a total of 1735 samples examined, 20 samples of biscuits and confectionery and one sample of cow milk product contained melamine level ranging from 0.2-289 mg/kg while during 2010 the samples contained only 0.04 -0.2mg/kg. The Ministry of Public Health issued notification number 311 B.E 2551 in 2008 prohibiting food to be produced, imported or sold unless they meet to the criteria for melamine and its analogues (cyanuric acid, ammelide and ammeline) as prescribed by the Food and Drug Administration. The limit prescribed for infant milk and whole milk powder of all categories was 1 ppm and other foods 2.5 ppm. The punishment for violation include imprisonment from 6 months – 2 years and fine ranging from 5000- 20,000 Bath (Approximately US $ 700). The communication strategies implemented by them included educating the consumers to choose safe products and informing them lists of safe and unsafe products which had been analyzed for melamine contamination through the mass media. Information was also updated through the ministries website and shared with INFOSAN as well as ARASFF (ASEAN Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed). The constraints identified by her for developing countries in such a scenario included limited resource for surveillance and monitoring as well as lack of capability for managing new food safety threats.
Dr Ramesh V Bhat under country experiences, provided an overview of using scientific institutions expertise for risk analysis and approach to drawing up/ revising standards in India. He touched upon the aspects of Indian scientific scenario, including history, vision, specific examples of use of science for risk assessment such as Bt Brinjal, occurrence of environmental contaminants in diet and the possible use of mould/black tip rice. The clear separation of risk assessment and risk management functions in India was highlighted by him. Dr Bhat cited examples of i) Bt brinjal wherin the expert opinion of the six major Scientific Academies were rejected by the risk manager at the highest level ii) the black tip/mouldy rice wherein both the risk assessors as well as the risk managers erred in not being able to take a holistic view of the quality and safety problem and iii) occurrence of environmental contaminants through a total diet study in one of the provinces providing proper scientific inputs to the WHO. The work of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India in standard setting and revising was also explained. According to him, areas that need further attention include adhering to core provisions of scientific advice, Government/academia/research Institute/industry interaction , mentoring at state level to improve quality and excellence, seeking recognition for religious and cultural sensitivities for foods suitable to Indians (e.g. source of animals not fed with feeds of animal origin).
In the presentation “Use of scientific advice for safe foods”, Mr. Steve J. Crossley outlined how scientific advice is used in Australia to ensure safe food. The Australian food regulatory system was outlined together with the process for the establishment of national food standards. The central role of risk assessment in food standards setting s and in managing food incidents was also covered. The presentation concluded by emphasizing the
8
importance of using an evidence and science-based approach and drawing attention to the authoritative international risk assessments of JECFA, JMPR and JEMRA,
Under regional experiences, Mr. Gilberto Layese presented the ASEAN experience on harmonization of technical requirements at regional level following a science based approach. He explained the rationale of ASEAN economic community, work of the task force on Harmonization of Standards for Horticultural Produce and other Food Crops and the ASEAN Good Agricultural Practices including its current alignments. As explained by him, the ASEAN GAP has four modules viz., food safety, environmental management, workers health, safety and welfare and produce quality. Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines and Brunei Darussalam have chosen to have close alignment with ASEAN GAP in the area of food safety. However for other modules different countries have close, partial or no alignments. The ASEAN GAP working group that oversees the “harmonization and Implementation of ASEAN GAP” project reports to the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Crops, which then reports to Senior Official Meeting - ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Agriculture and Forestry (SOM-AMAF) and subsequently to AMAF. The AMAF reports to the ASEAN Economic Community Council, one of the three main Councils of ASEAN to guide the economic integration process and establishment of a regional single market and production base by the year 2015.
Participants discussed the relevancy of regional efforts in the international context, ongoing efforts on organic food, etc.
Theme 3 Use of Science in Food control programmes - inspection and certification
Dr Ramesh V Bhat covered both ‘the application of a science and risk based approach for inspection’ (originally scheduled to be presented by Mr Peter Embarek) and ‘the application of a science and risk based approach for risk based frequencies’. The issues included by him in his talk were: Use of science in risk based approach to inspection – traditional and modern- establishment categorization- prioritization- High, medium & low risk businesses, Criteria for determining frequencies and regulatory basis. The use of science in food control areas such as for establishing standards, moving to risk based inspections, categorization of establishments such as primary producers, manufacturers and packers, distributors and transporters, retailers, service sector (restaurants/street foods) etc., establishment of databases and laboratory analysis including use of rapid detection kits were explained by him. Dr Bhat supplemented his lecture on domestic, export and import inspection frequencies with information culled out of a number of scientific publications on the subject. Inspection frequencies also need to be risk based and more research need to be conducted on determining frequencies for import/export inspection and data generated to aid in deciding inspection frequencies on the lines of research carried out for inspection frequencies in catering establishments.
A case study on the Australian experiences on use of science in food control programmes was shared by Mr. Steve J Crossley. He introduced approaches to risk management, including the goals, principles and the factors to consider and presented an overview of the Australian enforcement and inspection activity for both domestically produced and imported food. The principles of food recall and food incident
9
management were also outlined with reference to national protocols. The case study used the example of cyanide contamination of vegetable crackers. This highlighted the importance of using scientific advice and having a good working relationship with the food industry and other government departments. The discussions by participants centered on food recalls and withdrawals.
Mr. Sharad Adhikary, in his talk explained the implementation of risk based food inspection in Asia with a SWOT analysis of the subject in the region. Food safety control are often compromised in Asian context because of traditional practices, poor surveillance of food borne diseases, weak data base on exposure assessments, under resourced food inspection system and laboratory infrastructure. The use of international networking is limited. According to him familiarity of concept of HACCP and its practice by establishments in many countries of Asia is one of the strengths. The weaknesses include lack of appropriate legislation, continued end-product testing, fragmented and lack of voluntary promotion of HACCP. Consumer awareness, global trade demand, climate change, availability of codex standards and increased concerns of food safety as a major health determinant are the opportunities. The threats cited by him included lack of belief in the risk-based approach, difficulty in fostering public private partnerships, looking only for external support and resistance to change.
Theme 4 Importance of Information Gathering (including Use of Scientific Data) and Analysis for a Scientific Basis and Communication
In the presentation “Importance of information gathering, its analysis and utilization and sources of information” a summary of the sources of information available to Asian developing countries was outlined by Mr Steve J Crossley. Risk assessments, FAO/WHO Consultation and Workshop reports and scientific published data represent important sources of scientific assessment. At the national and regional level the generation of monitoring and surveillance data allows the identification of hazards in food and an assessment of dietary exposure. An overview of the methodology for dietary exposure assessments was presented which drew particular attention to the availability of the WHO/GEMS Food Balance Sheet data for the region. Food borne illness disease surveillance also plays an important role in disease outbreak investigation and management and in identifying the specific infecting organism.
Mr. Gilberto Leyese shared the experience of Philippines and ASEAN on information gathering, its analysis and utilization for scientific standardization activities. The rationale in the post WTO era of SPS and TBT regimes and the need for utilizing Codex and harmonization of standards were detailed by him. The standard setting mechanisms followed were based on the consolidated results of science, technology and experience. Draft standards deliberated by the technical committee are circulated for comments by the stake holders before publication. He specifically mentioned case studies on i) Desiccated coconut – minimum oil content, granulometry and microbiological specification ii) Virgin coconut oil – essential composition and quality factors, specifically the identity and quality characteristics iii) Dried boneless danggit (Siganus sp) - code of practice for processing and handling of dried fish and determination of histamine levels iv) Draft standard on distilled coconut sap/nectar- determination of minimum alcohol content.
10
Ms. Shariza Zainol Rashid shared the experience of Malaysia on information gathering, its analysis and utilization for scientific standardization activities. The presentation was focused on how Malaysia gathers scientific information and the usage of such information in standard setting. As an introduction, Ms. Shariza shared the objectives, mission and strategies of Malaysia on food safety as well as the organization set up of the Food Regulation 1985 Advisory Committee and its Expert Committees. It was informed that the process of standard setting in Malaysia comprises ten steps which basically involve the identification of new standard or amendments of existing standard, information gathering, analyzing of information and standard setting. There were three platforms whereby standards are identified for further elaboration i.e application from industries or consumer, harmonization with international standard and updates of existing standards. Scientific information gathered for the standard setting process were of quantitative or qualitative nature which includes consumption and concentration data, reference health standards as well as standards and regulations of other countries. This information is used in the risk assessment process whereby exposure assessment is calculated and expressed as percentage compared with the reference health standard. The risk assessment study is used as a base in establishing food standards. Ms. Shariza also highlighted the challenges faced by Malaysia in gathering scientific information and risk-based standard setting such as the limitation of information, data gap and the expertise and capability in risk assessment process. The benefit of risk-based standard setting was also highlighted which includes the possibility of developing scientifically sound food safety standards, protect consumer and produce strong justification for trade protection. In summary, Ms. Shariza stressed the importance of science and risk-based standard setting as well as good basis of scientific information in standard setting.
Theme 5: New and Emerging Issues for Formulation of Scientific Advice
The speakers in the session included Mr. Steve J. Crossley, Mr. Gilberto Leyese, Mr. E. Hinoshta, Dr. Knud Ostergaard and Ms Shashi Sareen.
Mr Steve Crossley described the Australian experiences in identifying emerging threats. These could be classified either under classical risk factors such as microbiological or chemical/physical/ unknown or other risk factors such as those emerging from new technologies/ novel foods/allergenic foods etc. His talk included an analysis of current trends, the difference between hazard and risk, the role being played by the improvement in the sensitivity of analytical instrumentation and the shift in consumer expectations. Two case studies were briefly presented which outlined the Australian approach to the identification and response to emerging risks in the food supply. The national experience highlighted that globalization and other factors were resulting in an increasing number of international emerging risks. National and international networks were particularly important in managing these risks, together with using the full evidence-base and applying the best science.
The functioning of the ASEAN Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed was explained in details by Mr. Gilberto Leyese. The system established in 2007, was organized and funded by the EU and the Government of Thailand. It is based on the EU-RASFF model and Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar and Lao PDR participate in this. The tool for Rapid Exchange of
11
Information about food and feed safety among competent authorities of the network members was established with the purpose of detecting, generating and disseminating any proved risk on food safety. It relies on strong national network of agencies involved in food safety and linked with defined screenings of information. The two major components are to develop information exchange software and establish an information network. Initial scope covered only imported fisheries product. The model and the key requirements for the establishment of a national model as exemplified by the Philippines were also elaborated. The key requirements for the establishment of a national RASFF include readiness (policy), information infrastructure, networking, information transfer, access to scientific expertise, communication system and human and financial resources. Besides the notification mechanism, implementation and RASFF activities were explained by him. He called for the expansion of scope from current coverage of food and feed traded across the border to include those traded nationally.
The example of how Japan prioritizes food safety issue was presented by Mr Eiji Hinoshita. The various principles such as investigation of the cases (both rapid and detailed), scientific evaluation and decision of countermeasures for the case including budgets were presented. The prevention of the hazard expansion, providing accurate information, legislation and new organization are necessary for countermeasure. He illustrated his lecture with the examples of severe public health issues like Avian flu and SARS and consumers anxiety about the food safety issues such as BSE and Konjak jelly, diversion of use of non dietary rice to dietary use in Japan. According to him ensuring food traceability issue is very important, which he elaborated by providing an overview of the legislation concerning rice traceability in Japan.
Mr Knud Ostergaard shared Danish experiences in identifying emerging threats. Besides chemical and microbiological issues, the packaging materials used by the food industries and the possibility of migration of chemicals could be a problem in future. Adequate legislation, knowledge how to handle the problem, capacity building, informing each other, transparency, economic considerations etc play an important role in identifying and managing emerging threats. His suggestion of classifying food establishments into six Risk groups and views inspection of meat establishments evoked some discussion from the participants.
A presentation by Mr. Steve Crossley introduced the INFOSAN food safety authority’s network and outlined its function and operation. Countries were strongly encouraged to actively participate in INFOSAN. A case study, thyrotoxicosis in infants in Australia due to excess of iodine in a soy milk product imported from Japan, illustrated the operation of INFOSAN in practice. Within five days of the identification of index case, alerts were sent to selected EU and Asian countries which have imported the soymilk. Other non-emergency activities of INFOSAN were also covered.
The working of the emergency prevention system, EMPRES, initiated recently by the FAO was explained by Ms Shashi Sareen. She explained the differences between the emphasis of INFOSAN and EMPRES. The EMPRES, a rapid response system for preventing the escalation of emergencies provides tools, advice to deal with threats and includes recall systems. While the former is a reactive system dealing with public health, the latter looks for signals to prevent the problem in the food production system.
12
Theme 6 Capacity Enhancing at Regional and National Level
Ms Shashi Sareen elaborated the role of FAO/WHO in capacity building with reference to scientific decision making. Besides highlighting the importance of science based food safety programmes and the capacities required to implement science based programmes, she also spoke on the challenges to effective capacity development and recent ongoing activities of FAO. Some future identified priorities for capacity development support in the region cited by her included Food Safety Emergency Planning, strengthening policy and legislation, strengthening laboratories and accreditation systems, assisting countries in developing integrated farm to table approach including Good practices/HACCP, strengthening public and private sector capacity to implement a risk-based approach, food composition studies and laboratory strengthening, regional collaboration, data management systems, Policy framework for harmonization of standards in line with international requirements, equivalence related strengthening, and micro and small enterprise development to achieve food security, safety and reliance for urban poor. She called for strengthening the national and regional scientific capacities and hoped that the activities would contribute to increased availability of data and experts for development of scientific advice, both at the national and international levels leading to enhanced global food safety.
6. Practical sessions
A series of practical sessions were conducted to encourage discussion and debate amongst participant as well as sharing of ideas and identifying common issues in the region. There were a total of four practical sessions.
6.1 Working Group session 1 (Part of theme 2); Practical group exercise on Different approaches on use of science for developing standards.
Participants were divided in to four groups. The groups were divided on sub regional basis viz., i) SAARC, ii) ASEAN 1 consisting of GMS countries some of which are among the Least developed countries, iii) ASEAN 2 mostly developed countries and iv) countries of far east and other countries. The issues and the suggestions and responses are summarized below.
The various groups discussed the issues by taking the following examples. Group I: Salmonella, Group II Melamine, Group III Aflatoxin in corn, and Group IV pesticide residues.
Issue 1 Consider how food standards are currently developed in countries- agencies responsible for processes
Standards are developed by the Technical committees of Scientists under the leadership of National Standard bodies or Regulatory authorities functioning under different ministries involving various stakeholders such as consumer bodies, industry representatives, etc. In certain cases public consultations are also conducted. Most countries are using Codex (also ISO) standards as a base. In some countries analysis and monitoring data is also considered.
13
Issue 2 Are risk assessments used in developing national standards (Scientific advice, expert bodies)? What is the potential in future?
Risk assessments are used by some countries (e.g. China, India, Japan, Korea, Philippines and Thailand) for developing standards.
Issue 3 How to identify and use relevant scientific data and information?
Relevant scientific data and information are identified by the inputs of research institutions and academia, use of databases, web search. Websites of ASEAN/Codex/Infosan/RASSF/ARASSF are also used as a source of data.
Regional harmonization and knowledge exchange in the region was expressed as important. Data on consumption & exposure assessments is also important and needs to be strengthened.
Issue 4 What are the plans to establish expert bodies?
Most countries do not have expert bodies and panels constituted. A proposal was made to set up a Regional Expert body for chemical contaminants and also to have a database on experts from the Region.
Issue 5 Consider how to improve collaboration and sharing between industry, research and inspection agencies?
Improving collaboration and sharing between industry, research and inspection bodies by the formation of consultative committees/working groups, expert advisory bodies, and conducting of national workshops. A suggestion was made to have a Food Safety Network for Asia. Suggestions were also made to establish public/ private as well as industry/ academia Partnerships.
Summary
Relevant scientific data and information are identified by the inputs of research institutions and academia, use of data base, web search, improving collaboration and sharing between industry, research and inspection bodies by the formation of consultative committees/working groups, expert advisory bodies, and conducting of national workshops.
6.2. Round table discussion “Identify ways to implement risk based inspections and inspection frequencies in Asia”
The Round Table Discussion was conducted as a part of theme 3 ie “the use of science in food control programmes – inspection and certification”. Two issues as below were taken up for discussions and for the first issue each individual country gave a response while for the second question there was a general discussion. Issue 1 - “Food specific risk factor important in each country”
Each country was asked to identify high risk foods as well as the risk factors important for that food. The following are the issues identified by each country.
14
Bangladesh: Processed foods - food additives including food colours, artificial sweeteners, aflatoxins (high risk)
Bhutan: Apple/Mandarin - pesticide residues (low risk)
Cambodia: Meat and meat products including fish – borax; raw vegetables - Salmonella, E coli; noodles - food additives; chili sauce - colour Sudan red
China: Fresh vegetables, fish
DPR Korea: Sea foods - heavy metals, microbial contaminants
India: Milk and milk products – pesticide residues and veterinary drug residues; fruits and vegetables - colours, pesticide residues; imported cereals - pesticide residues
Indonesia: Street foods - non permitted colours; tofu and noodles - food additives such as formalin; Nutmeg - aflatoxins
Japan: Vegetables and fruits - pesticide residues
Lao PDR: Sea foods, milk products vegetables and fruits - pesticides residues, unpermitted food additives
Malaysia: Vegetables - pesticide residues; sea food - microbial contaminants; peanuts - aflatoxins; noodles - borax, colours
Maldives: Infant formula - melamine; fish - histamine
Nepal: Tea, leafy vegetables - pesticide residues, heavy metals, colours; milk- synthetic chemicals
Pakistan: Rice and dry chilies- Aflatoxins; mango, citrus fruits- pesticide residues
Philippines: Prawn and meat- drug residues;
Thailand: Fishery products - antibiotic/ veterinary drug residues; fruits and vegetables - pesticide residues, microbial contaminants
Vietnam: Meat products and mineral water - microbial contaminants; fruits and vegetables - pesticide residues
Issue 2 Company related risk factors:
The following issues were identified as being important for developing risk-based plans in a country wrt assessment of industry.
a) If company has developed HACCP- no need to inspect
b) GAP practiced at farm level
c) QMS, GAP, HACCP implemented
15
d) Link with primary production- supplier controlled programme, linkage with ISO 22000 HACCP and Management systems
e) Under some certification programme such as ‘Star system’ in Indonesia for well performing units,
f) Small and medium enterprises- GAP in primary processing, GMP for food processing
g) Companies that have implemented Environmental management systems (ISO 14000) which indicates their desire for excellence
h) Trainings imparted to company workers on Good practices
i) Attitude of companies eg allowing/ not allowing Inspectors
j) Companies having problems such as non compliance with labour laws
k) intended use/ population group - school children/mid day programmes, consumption by vulnerable groups (illnesses), displaced person in emergency
l) Food control in eating establishments is most important
m) Consumers complaints
n) Previous inspection results
o) Consumer education level
p) Food from international aid programmes
q) In case of countries with for eg indiscriminate use of hormones in cattle
r) Use of non food grade plastic by industry
Summary
The ways to implement risk based inspections and inspection frequencies include identification of food wise risk factors which include: pesticide residues, food additives (such as formalin, borax) in vegetables; and, microbial hazard and aflatoxins in dairy products. The main factor which needs to be take into consideration are implementation of systems like GAP/GMP/ HACCP/ ISO 22 000, attitude of the company, previous history of compliance, complaints by consumers, company training programmmes and taking into consideration the intended use eg use by vulnerable groups (displaced persons, persons below poverty line), food donated as aid.
6.3. Workshop 1 (Theme 4): Enhancing the role of developing countries in providing scientific advice to Codex.
This workshop exercise was also carried out in the original four groups. Four aspects were identified for discussions as given below. The different views expressed and ideas that emerged are highlighted below:
Aspect 1 Difficulties encountered in providing scientific advice
16
Few number of experts, especially in smaller countries; lack of coordination between experts and Codex contact points; non effectiveness of National Codex Committees; lack of familiarity with Codex, problems in data generation due to lack of research, infrastructure and laboratory capacity; lack of mechanism for centralized data collection; lack of knowledge on analysis of data; funding and cost aspects; lack of involvement of industry; language barrier (need to continuously translate)
Aspect 2 What should Codex/FAO/WHO do to assist in getting advice from developing Asian countries?
Fund capacity development programmes such as training, organizing workshops, upgrading laboratories; invite from developing countries for participation in JECFA, JMPR, JEMRA, etc; conduct advocacy programme for policy makers; assist in organizing e-discussion groups in the region; encourage sharing of best practices among countries on how to provide scientific advice to Codex; provide financial support for data collection & analysis.
Aspect 3 How can countries contribute in the process of developing scientific advice for Codex standard setting?
Countries to improve programmes for collection of surveillance data; better coordination and dissemination of information to the Codex process; ensure relevant technical participation; encouraging the academia to carry relevant research; mentoring neighboring countries; timely response to codex in providing and sharing comments; establish mechanisms for holding national codex meeting with stakeholder participation; increase funding for research and training.
Aspect 4 How can regional/sub regional groupings support the activity of providing scientific advice for standards setting?
Create focal groups within region/sub region (e.g. ASEAN, SAARC), coordination of the generation of data; organizing regional workshops; provide mentorships to countries in need; make use of existing mechanisms in identifying issues of interest to the region; organizing regional e-working groups; establish regional peer reviewing system; establish regional coordination groups; organize exchange of expertise in region; establish regional training centre to support this area.
Summary
It was suggested that Codex/FAO/WHO need to fund capacity building programme such as trainings, organizing workshops, upgrading laboratories, organizing advocacy programme for policy makers, assist in organizing e-discussion groups in the region, encourage sharing of best practices among countries how to providing scientific advice to Codex.
The countries can contribute in the process of developing scientific advice for code standard setting by organizing programmes to improve collection and surveillance data, better coordination and dissemination of information on the Codex process, relevant technical participation, encouraging the academia to carry out relevant research, country Government mentoring neighboring countries, timely
17
response to codex in providing and sharing comments, establish mechanisms for holding national codex meeting with stakeholder participation. A need to create focal groups within region/subregion (e.g. ASEAN, SAARC) was expressed as also coordination of the generation of data, organizing regional workshops, organizing regional e-working groups, establishing regional peer reviewing system and establishing regional coordination groups.
6.4 Working Group II - Identify food safety threats in the region
The Working Group exercise was a part of Theme 5 (New and emerging issues for formulation of scientific advice). The participants worked in the same four groups. Three questions were posed and these along with the views of participants are elaborated below.
Question 1: What are the food safety threats at the national and regional levels?
The groups identified various chemical and microbiological threats in the region which could be intentional (bioterrorism / counterfeit/ adulteration) or unintentional. The chemical threats identified included the well known substances such a melamine, aflatoxins, both organochloro and organophosporous pesticides specially in cereals and fresh vegetables/fruits, veterinary drug residues, synthetic colours above permissible limits or unpermitted (like sudan red dye), additives not in the JECFA list, plant extracts, antioxidants, dioxins, heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium and lead and histamine in dried fish. The microbial contaminants included Salmonella, Shigella, Staphylococcus, Campylobacter, Clostridium botulinum, Coliforms, Hepatitis B, Rotovirus, Norovirus, Vibrio cholera, parasites and Bacillus sp.
Prevailing unhygienic conditions in food preparation, handling, transport and storage, animal human contact leading to potential of transmission and use of contaminated land and water for food production, llack of awareness of good agricultural practices; dumping of substandard foods in to the neighboring country are some of the causes of the microbiological and chemical contamination.
Question 2: What are the strength and weaknesses in countries in identifying food safety threats?
The strengths identified include awareness of food safety threats among food safety officials; available food laws in many countries; good testing facilities at least in some countries; opportunities provided by global information networks (INFOSAN and EMPRES); Codex standards and guideline; training programmes held in the region; building awareness and knowledge; efforts of regional sub regional groups such as ASEAN; chemical contaminant monitoring networks; access to internet; involvement of stake holders.
The weaknesses identified included lack of availability of testing facilities (some countries), limited capacity of expertise and manpower; inadequate infrastructure and supplies; low priority at policy level; legislative framework enforcement weak; limited surveillance and communication of outbreaks; reactive rather than proactive approach towards dealing with food safety issues; low capacity and knowledge to deal with emergency situation; technology and financial issue, limited data due to lack of resources,
18
inadequate laboratory capability; lack of information on identifying, controlling, conducting counter measures; weak awareness of public/ consumers to notify authorities; lack of Research assessment capacity; lack of coordination among organizations; lack of traceability system; lack of information gathering, notification system and data analysis; and lack of scientific research capacity.
Question 3 How food safety threats are prioritized for actions and implementation?
Food safety threats could be prioritized by analysis of the severity and magnitude of the issues to public health- morbidity, mortality, affect on vulnerable group; consumer concern; economic losses or trade impact; political aspects; geographic spread of the disease; media and consumer awareness to the issue; and size of population being affected.
Actions suggested for implementation include raising awareness; strengthening existing surveillance/inspection system on food borne disease; strengthening of Emergency Response Systems; constituting National consultative board/Committee or strengthening its role; government commitment; strengthening existing surveillance/inspection system on food borne disease; gaining media focus; and establish an institute to deal with data/ information on food safety.
Summary
The groups identified various chemical and microbiological threats which could be either intentional (bioterrorism / counterfeit/ adulteration) or unintentional. Prevailing unhygienic conditions in food preparation, handling and storage, animal human contact leading to potential of transmission, use of contaminated land for food production, dumping of substandard foods into neighboring countries are some of the causes of the microbiological and chemical contamination.
The strengths identified included awareness of food safety threats among food safety officials, availability of food laws in many countries, good testing facilities (at least in some countries), opportunities provided by global information networks (INFOSAN and EMPRES), Codex standards and guideline, training programmes held in the region for building awareness and knowledge, efforts of regional sub-regional groups such as ASEAN. The weaknesses identified included non availability of testing facilities (in some countries); limited capacity of manpower; inadequate infrastructure and supplies; legislative enforcement weak; low level of awareness of consumer; lack of awareness on good practice during production, food handling, processing, transportation and storage practice; limited surveillance and communication of outbreak; lack of coordination among organizations, lack of traceability system, poor information gathering, notification system and data analysis, lack of scientific research capacity. For prioritizing food safety threats for actions and implementation, a proposed suggestion was to establish an institute to deal with data/ information on food safety and also a National Consultative Board or Committee.
6.5 Workshop 2 (part of theme 6) : identifying the priority needs on building scientific capacity and action plans for the same at the national and regional level.
19
The workshop exercise was a part of Theme 6 ---. The priority needs identified were grouped under six broad headings as below:
I Trainings 1. Advocacy to policy makers and planners in enhancing understanding the implication & importance of review of legislation to take account of risk-based approach 2. Regional technical programs for training and harmonizing data collection and analysis 3. Trainings on specific areas such as toxicology, new food processing technology, risk communication, dietary consumption studies, validations for test methods, etc 4. How to develop, plan and implement risk-based inspection systems 5. Enhancing collaboration between risk managers and assessors/ experts
II Capacity Development 1. Strengthening laboratory capability (infrastructure, equipment & expert staff), particularly the training of chemists, food technology scientists and microbiologists including GLP 2. Models/ GLs for implementing traceability in the Region with support from FAO & WHO 3. Strengthening capacity to deal with Food Safety in natural emergencies/ disasters
– Development of Guidelines – Checklist – Rapid survey
4. Pilot projects on Food Safety Management for assistance to private sector including restaurants, street foods and small food industries 6. Food Safety Emergency Management Response – assist in CD III Databases 1. Build web based scientific research database for Asia 2. Establish database of key scientists/experts in each topic IV Regional Programmes 1. Exchange Programmes in Region 2. Harmonizing inspection procedures within region for enabling recognitions and smother trade 3. Regional initiative on dietary exposure assessments 4. Develop regional information network and information sharing for scientific capacities 5. Development of communication material for food safety which can be used in the region 6. Develop PT programmes for the Region V Cooperation for Participation in Codex meetings Enhancing regional participation in scientific meeting
20
No specific Action Plan is given as all the areas were found to be equally important, both at country and regional level as indicated. It was however, suggested that greater utilization of expertise of neighbouring countries on a bilateral basis should be made in various areas. Focus by countries should also be on secondment of staff/study tours both bilateral and multilateral. At the international level, FAO should focus on coordination of more Workshops in different areas.
7. Course evaluation
Participants were provided with an evaluation form and were requested to complete at the end of the workshop. The evaluation form is enclosed as Annex 3.
31 participants completed the course evaluation form. The evaluation indicated that the participant’s expectations were generally fulfilled. The participants desired that the course materials should have been circulated well in advance and the logistics of participation should have been better handled. The results of the evaluation are provided below at Annex 3.
8. Closing ceremony
Certificates were distributed to all the participants by resource persons and support staff. On behalf of the FAO and WHO, Ms Shashi Sareen thanked the host country, Indonesia for holding the workshop in Indonesia and for the very effective organizational arrangements. She also thanked the resource persons for their presentations as well as support in the Group work which significantly contributed to the success of the workshop. The participants were thanked for their active and lively participation in the workshop. The contribution of the Indonesian Secretariat was well appreciated.
Executive summary
The main emphasis during the Regional workshop was to provide an overview of the on the application of scientific and risk-based approach to standards setting and food control systems throughout the food chain for ensuring safe foods. The various presentations by the resource persons centred around this theme. The core principles of scientific advice evolved by the FAO/WHO, the procedures followed by them for providing scientific advice, specific examples followed by selected countries of the region which had established scientific basis for food control systems were explained. Opportunity was provided through round table discussions, working group sessions and workshops to the participants to share the views of their countries on aspects such as different approaches on use of science for developing standards, ways to implement risk based inspections and inspection frequencies, enhancing the role of developing countries by capacity development activities as well as regional programmes, establishment of databases etc. in providing scientific advice to National Governments, regional bodies and Codex. The participants, after taking into consideration the existing scenario in countries of the region, could identify and prioritize the food safety threats in the region and were able to identify practical and feasible solutions such as:
21
i) Improving collaboration and sharing between industry, research and inspection bodies through the formation of consultative committees/working groups, expert advisory bodies, and conduct of national workshops
ii) implementing risk-based inspections supported by identification of risk factors and taking into consideration implementation of issues like GAP/GMP/ HACCP, history of compliance, complaints by consumers, company training programmmes, the intended use (eg use for vulnerable groups, displaced persons, persons below poverty line), food donated as aid etc.
iii) Enhancing the role of developing countries in providing scientific advice to Codex by organizing programmes to improve collection of data including surveillance data, better coordination and dissemination of information to the Codex process, relevant technical participation, encouraging the academia to carry relevant research, mentoring of neighboring countries by governments.
iv) Enhanced capacity building activities including training and equipping laboratories.
22
List of Participants
Annex 1
No
Name Country Organizations Address Tel.Number Email
1 Md. Nashir Uddin
Bangladesh
BSTI (Bangladesh Standards & Testing Institution
116/A, Tejgaon I/A Dhaka. Bangladesh
88029897881 88028816088 M01193241795
2 Jambay Dorji
Bhutan Bhutan Agriculture & Food Regulatory Authority, MOAF
Thimphu, Po Box 1071, Bhutan
00975-2-327031 00975-17618686
3 Aing Hoksrun
Cambodia Ministry of Health Cambodia
151-153. st.kampuchea Krom, Phnom Penh
M:85585538066 Off.85523722150
4 Pich Chan
Cambodia Ministry of Commerce, Cambodia
50E0, street 144 Phnompenh, Cambodia
85523426166 [email protected]
5 Yang Mingsheng
China Ministry of Agriculture, China
Room 808, Maizidian Street Chaoyang District, Beijing
+861059195082
[email protected] [email protected]
6 Wang Huali
China Ministry of Health, China
Panjia Yuan South 7 Chaoyang District, Beijing
+861087776914
7 Hong Hyong Gwan
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
The Academy of Health & Food Science
Ryongbuk-dong, Taesong district Pyongyang
8 Kim Yong Il
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
The Academy of Health & Food Science
Ryongbuk-dong, Taesong district Pyongyang
9 S.K. Tiwari
India Food Safety & Standards Authority
FDA Bhawan,kotla Road, New Delhi
011-23237433 91996830856
23
of India 4 [email protected]
10
Lalitha R. Gowda
India Central Food Technological Research Institute Mysore, India
CFTRI, Mysore, 570020 India
+91-821-2514972
[email protected] [email protected]
11
Chairun Nissa
Indonesia National Agency for Drug & Food Control (NADFC) Republic of Indonesia
Jl. Percetakan Negara No.23, Jakarta 10560
+62-21-4241781
12
Pratiwi Yuniarti Martoyo
Indonesia National Agency for Drug & Food Control (NADFC) Republic of Indonesia
Jl. Percetakan Negara No.23, Jakarta 10560
+62-21-42875584
13
Putu Riana S. Rahayu
Indonesia Regional office of National Agency for Drug & Food Control Republic of Indonesia in Denpasar
Jl. Tjut Nya Dien No.5 Denpasar
+62361234597
14
Made Yanthi Trisnawati
Indonesia Regional office of National Agency for Drug & Food Control Republic of Indonesia in Denpasar
Jl. Tjut Nya Dien No.5 Denpasar
+62361234597
15
Nheune Sisavad
Lao PDR Department of Intellectual Property Standardization & Metrology, NAST
PO. Box 2279 Vientiane Capital, Laos
856-21-29002 [email protected]
16
Sivilay Naphayvong
Lao PDR Food & Drug Department; Ministry of Health
Simeuang road, Ministry of Health, Vientiane , Laos
8562055607781
17
Shariza Zainol
Malaysia Food Safety & Quality Division, Ministry of Health
Level 3, Block E7, Parcel E, Federal Government
+6012-2045278
24
Rashid Malaysia Administration Center, 62590 Putrajaya,Malaysia
18
Shabeena Ahmed
Maldives Maldives Food & Drug Authority
Sosun magu, male,Rep of Maldives
009607948666
[email protected] [email protected]
19
Oyunbileg Janchiv
Mongolia Public Health Institute, Ministry of Health
Peace Avenue-17 Ulaambaatar, Mongolia
976-458645 976-99762000
20
Aruna Nand Mishra
Nepal Dept. Of Food Tech & Quality Control
DFTQC Babar Mahal Kath, Nepal
00977-1-4262739 977-9841550512
21
Upendra Ray
Nepal Dept. Of Food Tech & Quality Control
Regional Food Tech. & Food Quality Control Office, Biratnagar, Nepal
00977-21-470221 977-9842051014
22
Engr. Riyaz A. Memon
Pakistan Pakistan Standards & Quality Control Authority (PSQCA)
Pak.Sect.77, Saddar Karachi 74410
+92333-7821270
23
Ghazala Sultana
Pakistan Agriculture Livestock Products Marketing & Grading Dept. Government of Pakistan, Karachi
Jameel Chambers, Saddar 4th-7th floor, Karachi, Pakistan
021-99207436 021-9205921
24
Maria Theresa Cerbolles
Philippines Food & Drug Administration-Dept. Of Health
Civic Drive, Filinvest Corporate City,Alabang,Muntinlupa City, Philippines
+6328072843 [email protected]
25
Minda Manantan
Philippines National Meat Inspection Service-Dept.of Agriculture
Visayas Ave, Diliman, Quezoncity,
(632)921-4473 (63917)837-
25
Philippines 8729 26
Dawisa Paiboonsere
Thailand National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity & Food Standards
50 Phaholyothin Road, Ladyao, BKK Thailand
+66(0)2-5612277 #1426
[email protected] [email protected]
27
Worapoj Ritdee
Thailand Food & Drug Administration
88/24 Tiwanont Rd, Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand
+66(0)2-590-7185
[email protected] [email protected]
28
Huynh Van Tu
Vietnam Institute of Hygiene & Public Health HCM City, Vietnam
159 Hung phu, Ward 8, District 8, Hochiminh City
+84838559503 Mob:+84918126200
29
Nguyen Thi Minh Ha
Vietnam Deputy Director of Vietnam Codex Office
135 Nui Truc Street Hanoi, Vietnam
84438464489 #3070 Mob:84904214230
[email protected] [email protected]
30
Dinar Pandan Sari
WHO, Indonesia
Environmental of Health
Jl. Rasuna said, Jakarta
+6285811635357
31
Jie Hu Secretariat
Asia
Europian Food Law Association (EFLA)
50, Rue de L’Association 1000 Brussels, Belgium
+32473621052
Resource Persons
No.
Name Organizations Address Tel. Number Email
1 Shashi Sareen
FAO, Regional Office for Asia & The Pacific
39, Phra Anvit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand
66(2)6974143 [email protected]
26
2 Heesun Kim Codex Secretariat Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy
+390657054796 [email protected]
3 Jiraratana Thesasilpa
Food & Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health
88/24 Tiwanont Rd, Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand
66(2) 5907183 [email protected]
4 Eiji Hinoshita Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8916 Japan
+81-3-3595-2326
5 Gilberto F. Layese
Bureau of Agriculture & Fishery Products Standards (BAFPS)
DA, Diliman, QC, Philippines
9206131 [email protected]
6 Steve J. Crossley
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
55, Blackall St, Barton, Act 2600 Australia
+61262712222 [email protected]
7 Sharad Adhikary
WHO, Indonesia WHO, Bina Mulia-2, Jl. Rasuna Said Kuningan, Jakarta
+6221-812-106-4879
8 Ramesh V. Bhat
Independent Consultant MII Kakateeya Nagar, Habsiguda Hyderabad 500007, India
0091-40-27173754
9 Knud østergaard
Danish Veterinary and Food Administration
Mørkhøj Bygade 19, 2860 Søborg, Denmark
+4572276705 [email protected]
Inaugural Session:
27
No.
Name Organizations Address Tel. Number Email
1 Roy A. Sparringa
National Agency for Drug & Food Control Republic of Indonesia
Jl. Percetakan Negara No. 23, Jakarta 10560
+62214253857 [email protected]
Indonesia Secretariat
No.
Name Organizations Address Tel. Number Email
1 Singgih Harjanto
Secretariat of the Codex Contact Point, the National Standardization Agency of Indonesia
Manggala Wanabhakti Blok IV Lt. 4, Jl. Jenderal Gatot Subroto,Senayan, Jakarta 10270 Indonesia
+62 21 5747043 ext 311
28
Annex 2
FAO/WHO Regional Workshop on
the “Use of Science throughout the Food Chain for Safe Foods”
Bali, Indonesia, 18 – 20 November 2010
Target audience and objective of the session:
Target audience is Risk Managers in Asian countries
Objectives:
To understand the process and the usefulness of various scientific advice (including FAO/WHO scientific advice) for the use of and application of scientific and risk‐based approach to national standards setting and food control systems across the entire chain for ensuring a safe food; and
To evolve Regional priorities of scientific advice for food control throughout the food chain to enhance food safety and address issues of harmonization with Codex process
Outcomes:
• Awareness on the work in the area of science advice for standards formulation FAO/WHO Other countries including in the Region
• Sharing experiences of successful national and regional activities in the area of science advice vis a vis elaboration of scientific advice by FAO/WHO for development of Codex texts
• Increased awareness of capacity enhancing avenues available in relation to Scientific and risk based activities for better communication and priority identifications
• Strengthened decision making process in food safety at National and regional levels • Identification of regional priorities of scientific advice in Asia for further discussion in Codex sessions
29
Programme
Day 1
0800 – 0830 Registration
0830 – 0900 Opening Ceremony
Welcome remarks by Dr Peter K. Ben Embarek on behalf of FAO/ WHO
Inaugural address – Dr Roy Sparringa, Deputy Chairman, Food Safety & Hazardous Substance Control, National Agency for Drug & Food Control, Indonesia
Vote of Thanks – Dr Ramesh Bhat/ FAO.
0900 – 0945 Introductory Session – Objectives of WS, introduction by participants and their expectations (Dr Ramesh Bhat, Consultant)
0945 – 1015 Tea/ Coffee
Theme 1 Introduction of concepts on Scientific advice
1015 – 1050 Risk analysis approach – Dr Peter K. Ben Embarek, WHO
1050 – 1100 Discussions
1100 – 1150 Use of scientific advice for safe foods (to cover, principles, concepts including strengthening national food control systems through risk analysis and science, Role of JECFA, JMPR, JEMRA, how topics are prioritized, etc) - Ms Shashi Sareen, FAO
1150 – 1200 Discussions
1200 – 1330 Lunch
Theme 2 Country/ Regional experiences on implementing a science-based approach based
30
on Codex work
Country experiences
1330 – 1350 Control Measures for Melamine in Thailand – Ms Jiraratanat Thesasilpa, Food and Drug Administration, Thailand
1350 – 1410 Using Scientific Institutions expertise for risk analysis and approach to drawing up/ revising standards based on science – Dr Ramesh Bhat, Consultant
1410 - 1430 Use of scientific advice for safe food – Mr Steve J Crossley, FSANZ
Regional experiences
1430 – 1450 ASEAN experience on harmonization of technical requirements at Regional level following a science-based approach – Mr Gilberto Layese, Bureau of Agriculture & Fishery Products Standards, Philippines
1450 - 1530 Working Group Session 1 - Practical group exercise on ‘Different Approaches on Use of Science for Developing Standards – led by Dr Peter K. Ben Embarek, WHO
1530 – 1600 Tea/ Coffee
1600 – 1645 Presentations by Groups & discussions
1645 – 1700 Wrap up of Day 1
Day 2
Theme 3 The use of Science in Food Control Programmes - inspection & certification
0830 – 0900 The application of a science and risk-based approach for inspection
31
(including the training required/core capacities to implement this approach) - Dr Peter K. Ben Embarek, WHO
0900 – 0930 The application of a science and risk-based approach to inspection frequencies - Dr Ramesh Bhat, Consultant
0930 – 1000 Case study on use of science in food control programmes – Australia & New Zealand experiences – Mr Steve J Crossley, FSANZ
1000 – 1030 Tea/Coffee
1030 – 1100 Implementation of risk-based food inspections in Asia (include current status, opportunities, threats, challenges) - Dr Sharad Adhikary, WHO, Indonesia
1100 – 1200 Round table discussion – Identify ways to implement risk-based inspections and inspection frequencies in Asia – led by Dr Ramesh Bhat, Consultant
1200 – 1330 Lunch
Theme 4 Importance of Information gathering (including use of scientific data) and Analysis for a scientific basis and Communication
1330 – 1400 Importance of information gathering, its analysis and utilization & Sources of information – Mr Steve J Crossley, FSANZ
1400 – 1415
1415 - 1430
Experiences on information gathering, its analysis and utilization for scientific standardization activities 1. Mr Gilberto Layase, Philippines 2. Ms Shariza Zainol Rashid, Ministry of Health, Malaysia
1430 – 1500 Workshop – Enhancing the role of developing countries in providing scientific advice to Codex – Led by Ms Shashi Sareen, FAO
32
1500 – 1530 Tea/ Coffee
1530 – 1700 Workshop – Enhancing the role of developing countries in providing scientific advice to Codex contd
1700 – 1715 Wrap up of Day 2
Day 3
Theme 5 New & Emerging Issues for formulation of scientific advice
0830 – 0910 Some emerging threats, how to identify an emerging threat and prioritise issues - work carried out at international level (including Empres & Infosan) - Dr Peter K. Ben Embarek, WHO
0910 – 0930 ASEAN Rapid Alert System for Food - Prof Gilberto (Philippines)
0930 – 0950
0950 - 1010
Experiences in identifying emerging threats (Country presentation
1. Dr Knud Ostergaard
2. Mr Steve J Crossley , FSANZ
1010 - 1030 Experiences on how countries prioritise food safety issues - Mr Eiji HINOSHITA, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan
1030 – 1100 Tea/ coffee
1100 – 1230 Group Work : Identifying food safety threats in the Region (to cover what are the threats, how to identify, prioritizing these) - Dr Sharad Adhikary, WHO, Indonesia
1230 – 1400 Lunch
33
Theme 6 Capacity Enhancing at Regional and National Levels
1400 – 1430 Role of FAO/WHO in capacity building wrt scientific decision making – Ms Shashi Sareen, FAO
1430 – 1600 WS : Identifying of priority needs on building scientific capacity and action plans for the same (at both National & Regional level) – led by Dr Ramesh Bhat, Consultant
1600 – 1630 Tea/ Coffee
1630 - 1645 Wrap up
1645 – 1715 Closing Ceremony & Presentation of Certificates
34
Annex 3
FAO‐ WHO Asian Regional Workshop on “Use of Science throughout the Food Chain for Safe Foods”
Workshop evaluation and questionnaire
Your assistance in completing this form is appreciated. The comments you make will help in planning and delivering future courses. Providing name is optional. Please evaluate the workshop by grading each question. “4” is the highest score and “1” is the lowest score on the evaluation. For example “4” is excellent, “3” is Good, “2” is Average and 1 Poor.
In the results, first number indciates score and the second number indicates number of participants who had preferred that score
1.Name (Optional)
2.Organization ( Government Risk manager)/ Research Institution or Academia ( Risk assessor)
3.The first objectives of the course viz.,’to understand the process and the usefulness of various scientific advice (including FAO/WHO scientific advice) for the use of and application of scientific and risk‐based approach to national standards setting and food control systems across the entire chain for ensuring a safe food’ has been met.
Results: 4‐15; 3‐15; 2‐1and 1‐0
4. The second objective of the course ‘to evolve Regional priorities of scientific advice for food control throughout the food chain to enhance food safety and address issues of harmonization with Codex process’ has been met
Results: 4‐13; 3‐17; 2‐1and 1‐0
5.Outcomes achieved
5.1 Awareness on the work in the area of science advice for standards formulation
Of FAO/WHO
Results: 4‐19; 3‐11; 2‐1and 1‐0
Of other countries including in the Region
35
Results: 4‐5; 3‐19; 2‐3 and 1‐0
5.2 Sharing experiences of successful national and regional activities in the area of science 5.3 advice vis a vis elaboration of scientific advice by FAO/WHO for development of Codex texts
Results: 4‐9; 3‐20; 2‐2 and 1‐0
5.3 Increased awareness of capacity enhancing avenues available in relation to Scientific and risk based activities for better communication and priority identifications
Results: 4‐12; 3‐17; 2‐2 and 1‐0
5.4 Strengthened decision making process in food safety at National and regional levels
Results: 4‐14; 3‐13; 2‐4and 1‐0
5.5.Identification of regional priorities of scientific advice in Asia for further discussion in Codex sessions
Results: 4‐11; 3‐18; 2‐2 and 1‐0
6. Do you think the knowledge and skills that you acquired through the workshop can be applied in your country? Specify with examples
Results: 4‐12; 3‐16; 2‐0 and 1‐1
7. The methodology followed such as lectures, round table discussions, group discussions etc are effective for you to acquire the knowledge and skills about use of Science for food safety
Results: 4‐19; 3‐11; 2‐1 and 1‐0
8. The knowledge and skills acquired during the Workshops can be used in your country? Specify areas that can be specifically applied.
Results: 4‐15; 3‐16; 2‐0 and 1‐0
See comments below
9. Will this workshop help the Codex process in your country ? If yes, give some concrete examples.
Results: 4‐12; 3‐14; 2‐2 and 1‐1
36
See comments below
If no, state why it will not help the codex process in your country ?
10. State the action you are likely to initiate in your country as a result of attending the workshop?
See comments below
11. Overall impression of the workshop . Circle your answer among the following choice.
Very good ‐ 18; Good ‐ 12; Fair ‐ 0; Poor ‐ 1
12. General comments, if any.
See comments below
Thank you for your cooperation
37
Summary of comments made on FAO‐WHO Asian Regional Workshop on “Use of Science throughout the Food Chain for Safe Foods”
Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, 18‐20 November 2010
Item 8: The knowledge and skills acquired during the workshops can be used in your country –Specify areas that can be specially applied
• use of science in decision making and especially for the legislation/policy makers
• policy making for GAP; • prioritize food safety standard activities in country; science based standard
formulation; • measures for provision of scientific advice to Codex and ways to improve the
process; • some experiences from other countries on how they implement scientific
advice in their food safety issues; • awareness of the importance of scientific evaluation; • standard setting process; • addressing food safety issues at national level; • strengthening food borne disease surveillance and risk based inspection in
country; • rapid alert systems for food & feed, food recall mechanism and traceability; • risk based inspection approach, experience from Denmark, Australia and
others; • risk analyses implemented throughout food chain; • import of food based on risk‐based approach; • risk categorization; • food additive risk assessment; • providing advice to Codex; • areas of food safety and quality assurance; • better utilization of available knowledge and coordination with existing
institutions/farmers; • the importance on information gathering, analysis and utilization; • food survey for risk management; • information can be applied in food industry, as well as by quality control and
inspection authority, etc; • risk communication (scientific advice as tool/aid for awareness); • generate data to submit to JECFA, JEMRA, JMPR; • monitoring food consumption and collecting analytical data; • listing of experts available (both within and outside the country); • inventory of lab facilities; • improve use of data generated from regular activities; • awareness about INFOSAN, EMPRES;
38
Item 9: Will this workshop help the Codex process in your country?, if yes, give some concrete examples
• To set up an active “National Codex Committee (preferably under Ministry of Health to make it more effective);
• Understanding how to develop Codex Standard for products (eg fish sauce); • Understanding of the procedure for Codex meetings; • to encourage country in submitting scientific advice/ providing scientific
information to Codex; • Adoption of Codex standards as national standard; • in setting national standard based on risk analyses/ sound science; • the method of data gathering based on science and to seek assistance from
countries within the region; • it will give strong support in process of country’s data collection/providing
comments; • providing data for modification of standards; • new ideas to improve understanding of stakeholders on importance of Codex
to enhance cooperation and funding opportunity; • provide/ generate evidence with Asian countries cooperation & coordination; • identification of the priority in conducting inspection; • establish on‐alert systems for food and feed; risk‐based approach to food
safety issues. • capability enhancement.
Item 10: State the action you are likely to initiate in your country as a result of attending the workshop
• share my knowledge gained from this workshop with colleagues who are working in the organization, in every food safety forum;
• create awareness and use the information like INFOSAN and EMPRES; • focus on use of science throughout the food chain to ensure food safety
rather than rely on end product testing; • technical information gathering, analysis and utilization etc; • establish and test a model for collecting data on food borne illness and link to
foods consumed for a risk‐based approach; • strengthen the National Codex coordination in the country to participate
effectively in Codex activities; change the members of National Codex in my country;
• establish the framework for setting national standards and develop it as a regulation;
• revise existing food standards and harmonize with Codex standards to facilitate better inter state trade;
• to hold workshops to introduce about sources of information and scientific advice on food safety, awareness about Codex, science –based standards
39
formulation, etc; • submit report and recommendations to higher ups for policy decision and to
others concerned; • strengthen risk‐based inspection supported by surveillance data; • start to use the concept of food category risks for food inspections, recalls,
etc; • motivate food manufacturers and inspection body to implement the
knowledge/ principles in their own areas; • look for scientific advice available in the areas of food traded in wet market; • discuss with the departments involved in standard setting and data
generation; • strengthen communication at the national and regional level; • start compiling an “experts” directory; • increase the use and coordination of available regional/international bodies
to ensure food safety in the region.
Item 12: General comments
• It helped enhance the knowledge about food safety, policy making, etc to ensure food safety;
• FAO/WHO should continuously support least developed countries; • the workshop was well organized & managed, all the speakers have made the
subject clear as the lectures were well conceptualised; I would thank to organizers for their efforts made for materializing this workshop;
• well organized and conducted in a professional manners; • we need to create a SAARC regional food safety like ASEAN for dissemination
of information; • conduct such workshop the next time; • thank you for the support; • very informative and most the presentation were very comprehensive;
application of workshop would be in use of scientific and risk based approach to standard setting in countries; experience from ASEAN countries to be utilized in the South Asia to develop such food safety systems;
• I’d like to thank every trainers for this workshop; • I’d like to express appreciation to the kind trainers; • The workshop went well. The participants were not inhibited in providing
their own experiences and inputs. The speakers were hands‐on practitioners and they were able to share very well. The facilitators were very inclusive and did a good job in time management;
• It would be great if we could have the document beforehand or at the time it was presented or, at the very least, the day after the presentation;
• huge amount of subjective materials were discussed within 2 days meeting and all the presentation were not completely discussed by the resource person;
• presenters should be give more time to deliver their lecture, sometimes useful and important/slides got cut due to limitation of time; more case
40
studies from Asian countries on inspection would be useful, in addition to Australia and New Zealand experience;
• we got difficulties in getting the visa as well as the confirmation did not come in time;
• logistics was terrible prior to this workshop; • should invite some translators who can communicate between the
participants from different countries ‐ if just in English language, the Japan, Korea, China etc. can’t share enough information with others.
![[POLTEK DENPASAR - UG PERPUS] Administrator](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/6178c469c58520078e3e57d7/poltek-denpasar-ug-perpus-administrator.jpg)
