 |
 |
Final report of the FAO/WHO Regional Conference on Food Safety for Asia and the Pacific |
|
New Zealand has developed a new agency to regulate food safety, and new legislation to implement risk management in food production, processing and export. The Food Safety Authority commenced work on 1 July 2002, bringing together regulatory functions previously administered in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Regulatory Authority (later known as MAF Food Assurance Authority), and the food aspects from the public health ara of the Ministry of Health.
This paper attempts to present some of the solutions New Zealand has developed and implemented to manage some of the issues and challenges which participants at this Conference are outlining in detail. This is done not to prescribe these elements as solutions for others, but to give the reasons and outcomes experienced in one of the region’s member countries.
New Zealand was asked to address issues from the perspective of a “developed” country. This may not be completely appropriate. New Zealand, like many represented at the Conference, has a heavy reliance on land-based production and fishing. It has a tiny population, and the main industry is primary production. It therefore shares many of the concerns of other agricultural or fishing economies from around the region.
Words heard frequently from New Zealand regulators in discussing food safety include:
Legislation is designed specifically to ensure there is public confidence in a safe food supply, clear accountabilities for each of the players, and – unusually in food legislation – the need to ensure proper access to foreign markets, reflecting the fact that so much of the food produced in New Zealand is exported. Details on the NZFSA web-site (www.nzfsa.govt.nz) set out the regulatory relationships, and the roles of the government as standard-setter, a separate layer of audit, and the group with the prime role in ensuring food safety, the food industry itself.
As a food trading country, New Zealand has an interest knowing what a trade partner’s food safety measures are designed to achieve: are they justified, and are they fairly applied? And do they achieve the stated purpose: protecting consumers’ health? Because so much of the food produced in New Zealand is exported, there is almost a double obligation on New Zealand regulators and industry. Consumers at home must be able to access safe food, but overseas consumers also have the power, through any rumour of problems, to shut down New Zealand food exports to that market, or even further afield. New Zealand’s export food standards are high because food is pursued as a serious business for the whole country.
A practical example of how New Zealand has implemented risk management is offered in the Animal Products Act, in force from 1 November 1999. Its objectives are clearly expressed: to manage the risks to human and animal health from animal material and products, and to facilitate market access. Its scope includes all animal material (except human), with milk and milk products to be included from later in 2004. There are similar programmes in the remaining parts of New Zealand legislation which cover the other food items, although some of these are still voluntary in application.
The risk management system comprises mandatory risk management programmes implemented at the company level, regulated control schemes to achieve consistency across a number of operations (such as the national chemical residues or microbiological survey programmes), official assurance provisions for certification, and clearly defined duties for all involved in food businesses including registration of exporters who may not be food producers themselves, and with high penalties for those who might operate outside the law. The risk management programmes are documented systems drawn up by the food business, independently evaluated and – if acceptable – registered by NZFSA. It has to show how all the known biological, chemical and physical hazards are identified and the associated risks are managed. It also extends beyond well-known hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) principles. This can include cover of issues of wholesomeness where the food has to meet consumer expectations or exhibit truth in its labeling. The desired outcome is that the product is fit for its intended purpose – which may not always be for human consumption, given the range of possible products derived from animals.
In an evaluation of the risk management programmes, it should be noted that they have only started with effect from 1 November 2000. While all new operations must be within the ambit of the 1999 Act, some previously existing businesses still apply transitional arrangements. There are indications that some of the more traditional operations have no great drive to use the new provisions; some prefer the old system where their activities were prescribed by central government. As the larger operators make the transition, there remain smaller operators who clearly have problems with the degree of documentation involved in the risk management programme style. For them, it may be necessary to make more use of templates to help guide their compliance with the Act. Undoubtedly those wanting to innovate find that the freedom to develop their own style of managing the risks peculiar to their operation or product line make good use of the flexibility which the Animal Products Act offers. NZFSA is still to some extent guided by the concern that if too much is done for the operators, they lose their incentive to think through for themselves what food safety objectives their business is trying to attain, and are less likely to comply with the law.
With so much of New Zealand food’s traded, the issues that become evident in relationships with overseas counterparts are quite starkly evident. NZFSA, while welcoming visits from overseas counterparts to see that the food safety system which NZFSA implements actually functions as intended, is less sure that a useful purpose is served by overseas agencies which appear to think they need to visit New Zealand factories and approve them as suitable to export. NZFSA sees this as an appropriate role for New Zealand, and feels that an overseas “snap shot” impression from a one-day visit might well not be the best basis to assess ongoing management of food safety.
Another issue that is of concern is fraud involving fake New Zealand certificates or product labels. Among the measures developed to help counter this is a system In which Australia is now also active) of establishing secure electronic certification for exported food products.
In common with other countries, there are still occasions when the number of various agencies NZFSA has to deal with in a particular trade partner can hinder smooth resolution of any issues. But New Zealand too has biosecurity authorities to handle animal and plant health concerns and NZFSA for the human health components of imported food. Consistency in application of SPS measures by overseas counterparts is not always evident. There is sometimes no apparent reference to international standards (or justification of divergence from these), nor even to previous decisions made on similar import proposals. The conclusion can be drawn that reasons such as farmer or local production are enjoying protection, rather than the expected focus for food safety measures: human health.
Experience in food trade leads NZFSA to suggest that there may be some simple tools which overseas regulators could apply when risk analysis principles would normally be called for. There can be qualitative assessments made. For instance, does the exporting country already send similar products into the market with no food safety issues? Are there exports to other “benchmark” markets with suitably rigorous import regimes (eg like the EU or US)? Is the product being exported from eg a different species of animal but subject to the same regulatory system in the exporting country?
Some trade partners argue that they must apply the same measure to all exporters equally, but this ignores the WTO SPS Agreement provisions for recognising that two countries can conclude that measures in place are equivalent without necessarily following every detail of the other’s legislation, and still achieving the desired food safety outcome. It can also be claimed that there has to be reciprocity in these “special” deals. That is not usually the case. In many instances the trade in food will be one way, and the balance comes from the fact of the trade itself: one partner wants to sell, and the other wants to buy.
In all these regulatory relations, whatever form is chosen, there can be no assurance of food safety unless there is a basis of trust: that the industry has in its best interests to produce safe food; that the exporting authority has proper confidence; and that its assurances of compliance can be believed. No food safety system can exist or survive without this trust and confidence. In New Zealand’s case, NZFSA is the (Codex-defined) competent authority. NZFSA believes that the assurances it delivers are trustworthy and hopes that trade partners accept that too. If there are problems with New Zealand food, NZFSA will want to know – please.
The food regulatory model applied in New Zealand
