Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality

FAO/WHO Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality

Budapest, Hungary, 25 – 28 February 2002

FINAL REPORT

1. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) jointly convened the first Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality (the Conference) to identify and discuss ways to strengthen food safety and quality in the European region. The Conference was held in Budapest from 25-28 February 2002 at the kind invitation of the Government of the Republic of Hungary. The Conference was attended by several Ministers and State Secretaries and by a large number of high-ranking policy officers and technical experts from the entire European Region of FAO and WHO. It was also attended by some FAO and WHO Member countries outside that Region and by several international organizations as observers. A list of all participants is included in Annex 7.

2. The 22^nd FAO Regional Conference for Europe, held in Porto, Portugal in July 2000, welcomed the «Pan-European Food Safety Initiative», to harmonize food safety and quality policies in the European region proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of The Netherlands. As a part of this initiative, it was recommended that a Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality should be convened. The Conference was convened under the provisions of Article VI.5 of the FAO Constitution, and approved by the FAO Conference at its Thirty-first Session in November 2001.

3. The aims of the Conference were to provide a platform for European countries to survey and discuss food safety and quality issues of specific importance to the region and to consider ways and means to improve and harmonize the transparency and reliability of European food chains, in order to strengthen consumer confidence in food products. In particular, the Conference focused attention on opportunities for regional cooperation in the field of policy and science development, enhancement of information and communication systems on food safety and quality issues, and harmonization of food safety policies across the region. The Conference was to provide conclusions and recommendations to improve food safety policies and systems in the region and to enhance intra-regional cooperation in this field.

4. Information about preparatory meetings and other preparations for the Conference is given in Annex 2. The provisional agenda for the Conference is to be found in Annex 1.

II. Opening ceremony (Agenda item 1)

5. The Opening Ceremony was led by the Minister of Agriculture and Regional Development of Hungary, His Excellency Mr. András Vonza, the host of the Conference. Minister Vonza addressed the Conference and the text of his address is appended in Annex 3.

6. The Minister of Health of Hungary, His Excellency Mr. István Mikola, addressed the Conference. He said that it was an honour for Hungary to host the First FAO/WHO Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality. The text of his address is appended in Annex 3.

7. The Assistant Director-General of FAO’s Economic and Social Department, Mr. Hartwig de Haen, made a statement on behalf of the Director-General of FAO. He welcomed delegates to the Conference and thanked the Minister of Agriculture and Regional Development of Hungary for his Government's kind offer to host this important Conference. The text of Mr. de Haen’s address is appended in Annex 3.

8. The Executive Director, Office of the Director-General of WHO, Mr. David Nabarro, made a statement on behalf of the Director-General of WHO. The text of his address is appended in Annex 3.

III. Keynote address (Agenda Item 2)

9. In his keynote address, His Excellency Mr Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of The Netherlands, complimented FAO and WHO for their joint organization of this Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality. He supported the appeal of FAO’s Assistant Director-General, Mr. de Haen, for a successful World Food Summit: five years later. Mr. Brinkhorst underlined the essential link between food safety and food security and noted that FAO traditionally focused mainly on food security. He said that FAO should continue to do so, in view of the large number of undernourished people worldwide. However, when looking at developments in Europe, a link between food security and food safety, which is one of the political issues in Europe, is essential. In that context FAO has a challenge for the European Region. The summary text of Minister Brinkhorst’s address is appended in Annex 4.

Nomination of the Chairperson

10. His Excellency Mr. András Vonza thanked the speakers for their contribution. He nominated Ms. Diana Bánáti, Director-General of the Hungarian Central Food Research Institute, as Chairperson of the Conference and Head of the Conference Bureau.

IV. Remarks by the Chairperson of the Plenary Meeting (Agenda item 3a)

11. In her opening address, Ms. Bánáti noted the timeliness of this Conference, and the opportunity that it presented to address the specific concerns of the European region. She expressed her gratitude to the donors that had made the Conference financially possible: European Commission, Hungary, The Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, FAO, WHO and others.

12. The Chairperson made the following announcement before the substantive part of the meeting was opened:

13. The Secretariat stated that several Conference Room Documents had been received and made available in the original language for consideration by the participants.

V. Election of Officers (Agenda item 3b)

14. The Secretariat announced that the Chairperson of the Plenary Meetings would be assisted by two Vice-Chairpersons and a Rapporteur. Each of the Vice-Chairpersons would chair one of the Working Groups and be assisted by a Deputy-Chairperson and a Rapporteur. These officers comprised the Conference Bureau.

15. The Conference elected Mr. Johan de Leeuw (The Netherlands) and Mr. Patrick Wall (Ireland), as Vice-Chairpersons and Mr. Stuart Slorach (Sweden) as the Rapporteur of the Plenary Meetings of the Conference. The Conference appointed Mr. Johan de Leeuw as the Chairperson of the Working Group on Policy and Science Advancement and nominated Mr. Carl-Josef Weiers (Germany) as Deputy-Chairperson and Dr. Isabelle Chmitelin (France) as Rapporteur. The Conference appointed Mr. Patrick Wall (Ireland) as the Chairperson of the Working Group on Information and Communication Development and nominated Mr. Andrei Vershinin (Russian Federation) as Deputy-Chairperson and Mr. Krumoslav Capak (Croatia) as Rapporteur.

16. The Conference agreed that a Drafting Committee should be established to prepare the final report of the Conference for adoption, with the technical assistance of the Secretariat. The Drafting Committee consisted of the Members of the Conference Bureau.

VI. Adoption of the Agenda (Agenda item 3c)

18. The Conference took notice that following the presentation of the papers of the Conference, the specific agenda items of the Working Groups would be determined in plenary.

VII. Presentation of the Conference papers (Agenda items 4 and 5)

19. Nine Conference papers prepared by Members and NGOs were presented in plenary with the objective of identifying the main items for discussion in the Working Groups and to outline the recommendations suggested by the authors of the papers. The participants took note of the Conference Room Documents received. The Conference Papers and Conference Room Documents are found in Annexes 5 and 6.

Pan-European Cooperation In Policy And Science Advancement (Agenda item 4)

Food Safety and Quality in Europe - Emerging issues and unresolved problems: France
(Conference paper PEC 01/03, presented by Dr. Isabelle Chmitelin from France)

20. In response to recent food safety issues and the high level of media attention to these events, many European countries have recently reconsidered the organization of their food safety systems.

Each of these elements has limitations of a societal, economical or technical nature that should first be identified in order to provide appropriate responses. In this context it is also recognized that traceability is a major tool for risk management.

22. In the course of the discussion, the French delegation was requested to give further information on the limitations to risk management as implemented in France. The head of the French delegation re-emphasized three major limitations:

23. The representative of Consumers International made a point explicitly supporting the French approach in involving the consumers in the decision-making process.

Statistical Information on Foodborne Disease in Europe: Microbiological and Chemical Hazards: World Health Organization
(Conference paper PEC 01/04 , presented by Dr. Cristina Tirado from WHO, Rome)

24. Foodborne disease caused by microbiological hazards is a large and growing public health problem. Most countries with systems for reporting cases of foodborne diseases have documented significant increases over the past few decades in the incidence of diseases caused by micro-organisms in food, including Salmonella spp., multi-resistant Salmonella typhimurium DT104 and Campylobacter jejuni; there are also increasing reports of disease outbreaks caused by Listeria monocytogenes and E. coli O157.

25. Exposure to chemicals is a significant cause of foodborne diseases, although effects are often difficult to link with a particular food. Chemical contaminants in food include natural toxicants, such as mycotoxins, or environmental contaminants, such as dioxins, mercury, lead, and radionuclides. Food additives, pesticides and veterinary drugs are also widely used and it is essential to assure that these uses are safe.

26. Surveillance of foodborne disease and food contamination monitoring are essential tools for risk assessment. For this reason, major efforts are being made to develop adequate methods of surveillance of foodborne diseases and food contamination monitoring to provide the necessary data for quantitative microbiological and chemical risk assessment. Data was presented on foodborne diseases in the European Region and information on chemical contaminants, additives and residues in foods that may have an adverse impact in health. Future activities to prevent both microbiological and chemical risks should be discussed.

27. In the discussion, it was stated that the WHO Surveillance Programme of Foodborne Diseases in Europe focused on the collection of information from investigated outbreaks, rather than on disease incidence. Comparison of disease incidences between countries is difficult, due to differences in surveillance systems, reporting systems, and diagnostic methods. WHO is looking forward to the coordination of its activities on surveillance and food contamination monitoring with those of the European Commission, to avoid duplication of work in view of the creation of the European Food Safety Authority.

28. In addition, it was stated that although the major part of the problem with antimicrobial resistance relates to the human use of antimicrobials, WHO considers an important preventive measure will be the control of use of antimicrobials in animal production, especially the use of growth promoters.

System of Food Safety in Poland - Present situation and prospects for change: Poland
(Conference paper PEC 01/05, presented by Mr. Lujian Szponar from Poland)

29. Food safety and quality policies in Poland were reviewed with an emphasis on harmonization and changes in food safety regulation since 1989, moving towards accession to the European Union. Changes following the introduction of a market-orientated economy have impacted on agriculture and food production, contributing to improved food safety. Strategies for further improvements, including the development of food safety policy and reform of food controls indicated the future direction and emphasis for the system of food safety in Poland.

30. In discussion it was stated that the Polish food safety strategy - from farm to fork - aimed to eliminate the risks of foodborne diseases, but it was recognized that it was not possible to reduce the risks to zero. However, it was possible to make further improvements in food safety.

31. In response to a question about the implementation of the HACCP system for dietetic foods, it was stated that it was particularly important to ensure food safety in this branch of the food industry, since these foods were intended for infants and young children and those with suppressed immune systems.

Examples of comprehensive and integrated approach to risk analysis in the food chain - experiences and lessons learned: Sweden, Finland, European Commission
(Conference paper PEC 01/06, presented by Dr. Stuart Slorach from Sweden)

32. The need for and application of a holistic approach to risk analysis and food safety throughout the food chain, at the national, regional and international levels was highlighted. Responsibilities of those who produce, process and trade food were explained. Tackling problems at source using an integrated, multidisciplinary approach was emphasized and successful examples (such as the control of Salmonella in poultry in Sweden and Finland) were given. The importance of control on the use of pesticides and veterinary drugs and of making the results of food control activities public was emphasized.

33. In reply to questions, the Conference was informed that as eggs and red and white meat in Finland and Sweden were virtually free from Salmonella, the risk of contracting salmonellosis from these foods was small. Only 10-15% of all notified human cases were domestically acquired and there had been little problem with S. enteritis in eggs. Finland and Sweden had received special "Salmonella guarantees" when joining the EU in 1995. Certain foods exported to them from other EU countries had to undergo testing for Salmonella and be certified as Salmonella-free.

Institutional and scientific co-operation, networking and capacity building in the field of food safety and quality: Hungary and the Netherlands
(Conference paper PEC 01/07, presented by Mr. Cornelis Houtman from The Netherlands)

34. The situation regarding scientific co-operation, networking and capacity building in the field of food safety and quality in Hungary and The Netherlands was explained. Specific details were given about institutional co-operation, including staff and student exchange, collaborative projects in policy and science advancement, institutional and scientific networking projects and capacity building. Within a dynamic and fragile marketplace, with ever-changing consumer expectations, the implications and application of a Pan-European approach to further scientific and capacity building co-operation in food safety and quality were raised.

35. The consistency of networks with other food safety systems was raised in discussion; in particular, the differences between networks operating on a voluntary basis and those systems that were obligatory. It was noted that the GMO research network (ENTRANSFOOD) may not immediately result in a strategy, but that the main use of the network lies in pre-empting difficulties that might arise from the use of GMOs, and in providing an opportunity for working together, with all stakeholders, towards finding possible solutions to the problems identified.

Pan-European Cooperation In Information And Communication Development (Agenda item 5)

Rapid alert system for food products in the European Union and its possible extension to other countries in the Region - the development of harmonized regional strategies for food safety and the implementation of food security communication networks: European Commission
(Conference paper PEC 01/08, presented by Mr. Patrick DeWevre from the European Commission)

36. The European Community's Rapid Alert System was introduced, with emphasis on the legal basis of the system, the detailed procedures of its application and how the system works. Proposed improvements to the System were discussed, as were the underlying principles for such a communication network. Further opportunities were highlighted for agreements with other similar systems, including those developed by third countries or other organizations, and the creation of a network to cover the entire European region.

Emerging Risk Identification System (ERIS) – Information exchange and networking: The Netherlands and Romania
(Conference paper PEC 01/09, presented by Mr. Edwin Hecker from The Netherlands)

37. The initiative to set up a new system (ERIS) to identify emerging risks to food safety was presented. No such system has previously been developed.

38. In co-operation with the EU, FAO and WHO, the Netherlands initiated an inventory to investigate the possibilities of such a system. In the presentation three steps of the system development were shown. These included the identification of indicators that signal emerging risks, a computer search system to look for such risks, and communication with parties that need such a system.

39. The success of the system depends on regular input on all relevant aspects of food safety. Input of indicators or emerging risks and data to look for these risks from Ministries and research institutes in each country will be crucial for the success of ERIS. Therefore, co-operation and input from participating countries is needed to make the system operational.

40. The Pan-European Conference provided the opportunity to discuss the first steps of ERIS, and to gather input and discuss the initiative further throughout Europe.

The Biosecurity Portal - A mechanism for the exchange of official information on Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health: FAO
(Conference paper PEC 01/10, presented by Mr. David Nowell from FAO, Rome)

41. FAO presented an initiative to provide a single mechanism - the Biosecurity Portal - for the exchange of official information on food safety, animal and plant health, as related to the FAO mandate. Information will be provided from national and international agencies maintaining 'ownership' of the information. FAO could provide the mechanism and technical support for the Portal so that official information can be made available and readily accessed in a co-ordinated way. Examples of the type of information that could be accessible via the Biosecurity Portal were given, as was the likely technical assistance that FAO could provide to facilitate this. Access to the Biosecurity Portal will be widely available and free, although certain areas may be developed with restricted access limited to Member Countries. It is Internet- based to ensure wide usage and cost effectiveness.

42. In discussion it was noted that there was a need for national commitment to develop, and to use official information exchange systems, such as the EU Rapid Alert System and the Biosecurity Portal being developed by FAO. This was because these systems require obligatory information input: they are not voluntary networks for the exchange of information.

43. Clarification of the exact purpose of the Biosecurity Portal was requested in the context of its formal role as the deposit of official information such as risk analyses, and its role as a discussion forum for countries to exchange ideas and form opinions.

44. FAO replied that the system was envisaged primarily as an official forum for the exchange and deposition of biosecurity information e.g. risk assessments, legislation, regulations, and publications. This was usually official information that has a national obligation in terms of international or regional legal agreements. However, the Biosecurity Portal already has the technical capacity to host a discussion forum that might be relevant to official information. The Portal is a flexible system that can be developed to ensure that members' needs for the exchange of official information are met.

Consumer information and participation in interactive communication with consumers on food safety risks and food quality: BEUC, the European Consumers Organization
(Conference paper PEC 01/11, presented by Mr. Jim Murray from BEUC, Brussels

45. Independent consumer organizations are essential elements in the process of communicating with consumers about food and food risks. This process of communication has become more important in recent years because of changes in food production, composition, distribution, processing and origins, combined also with changes in consumer habits and attitudes. The effectiveness of interactive communication about risk assessment and management will depend on the overall openness and transparency of the assessment, decision-making and scientific process. Efforts will also be needed to increase understanding between consumers and scientists. Communication with consumers carries on against a background of marketing claims; more study is needed on the overall cumulative effect of such claims on consumers' understanding and misunderstanding of food issues.

Statement of the European Commission
(Conference Room Document PEC/CRD 18)

46. The delegate of the European Commission, Mr Nymand-Christensen, informed the Conference that the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, is a milestone in the development of an efficient food safety system in the European Union. The European Commission’s White Paper on Food Safety identified EFSA as a key element of the food safety strategy of the EU.

47. The EFSA is built on the principle of separation of risk assessment from risk management. The Authority will also be responsible for risk communication to the general public. It will be given full autonomy from the European Commission, and political bodies, such as the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

48. The scientists that will be appointed to the new EFSA Scientific Committee and the individual Scientific Panels will be chosen only on the basis of their experience, independence, expertise and excellence.

49. The delegate of the European Commission stated that it is the clearly identified objective that the EFSA should become a central coordinator at European level of all work related to scientific advice and risk assessment and will draw on the best scientific knowledge available.

50. While the EFSA was created to meet the needs of the European Union, all European countries present at this Conference are invited to ensure that their own risk assessment authorities are ready to work in an open Europe-wide network to the benefit of all participants.

51. The new European Food Safety Authority will change quite substantially how the European Union and its Member States will address risk management decisions in the future. Ultimately, the European Commission assumes that it will lead to greater trust and confidence in the whole food safety system by the public, in particular the European consumers.

Discussion

52. In discussion, several non-EU Member countries shared their experience and status in food legislation, food control and drew the attention of the Conference to existing problems such as:

53. In response to the question raised by some delegations regarding the division of responsibilities in risk assessment and risk management, the Representative of WHO said that there should be separation between the risk assessors and risk managers. In countries where risk assessors and risk managers belong to the same organization it was essential to ensure a functional, well-documented and transparent separation between their respective functions.

54. The Conference accepted the proposal of the Bureau and the Secretariat regarding the Procedures and the terms of reference for the Working Groups as presented in documents PEC 01/13 and PEC 01/14.

VIII. Other matters (Agenda item 6)

IX. Agendas of the Working Groups

56. The Conference agreed to discuss the items proposed during the discussion of the Conference papers, in two parallel Working Groups:

57. The Conference decided to proceed with discussions in these Working Groups, based on a draft Synopsis of Recommendations (PEC 01/12) prepared by the Secretariat. Four main issues for discussion were identified:

58. It was agreed that the first two items would be discussed in Working Group I and the last two items in Working Group II. It was agreed that issues of general importance, regarding the status and follow-up of the Conference, would be discussed in plenary. It was agreed that the two Working Groups would report their conclusions and proposals for recommendations to the plenary meeting. Following discussions in plenary, these would be adopted as the conclusions and recommendations of the Conference.

X. Summary of discussions of the Working Groups

Working Group 1

59. Many delegations pointed out that harmonization of standards/requirements and food legislation was essential in order to avoid duplication and waste of financial resources which were limited not only in developing, but also in developed, countries.

60. Some delegations stressed that the integration of administrative structures into a single food safety control unit would assist in more uniform application of the food safety control, while other delegations were of the view that the diversity of food control systems should remain, as it was up to national governments to decide how best to implement the decisions of the EC. Views were expressed that the virtual food control authority might provide some assistance in this regard. The Working Group agreed that the streamlining of the activities in food control and the "from farm to fork" approach should be emphasized, instead of giving strict recommendations regarding the place and the designation of the responsible ministry. In addition, very close coordination of food control activities must be ensured.

61. It was emphasized that the ultimate responsibility to ensure the safety of food should rest with the producers and marketers of food.

62. Some delegations emphasized the necessity to ensure the openness and full transparency of the risk assessment process and the need to ensure that minority opinions were conveyed to the consumer.

63. Some delegations questioned the existence and the content of the definition of food safety. In this regard, the Representative of the Codex Secretariat informed the delegates that such a definition existed in the framework of Codex and therefore was used throughout the world.

64. Some delegations pointed to the necessity of establishing better methodologies and links between food, nutrition and food/nutrition-related diseases. It was indicated that nutrition status data, based on real food consumption figures, was an essential element in ensuring the accuracy of the risk assessment and therefore should not be omitted from the terms of reference of food control authorities.

65. Many delegations emphasized the need for continuing education and training of various levels of society in different aspects of food safety.

66. While recognizing problems and constraints experienced by the small food business sector, the Conference agreed that the HACCP system should be a basic tool in ensuring food safety, and therefore it was essential to get support for its implementation.

67. The Delegation of Norway expressed its appreciation to the EU for its proposal to associate different countries in cooperation activities. It was stressed that existing systems should be connected, and the exchange of information facilitated and open to all interested countries of the region.

68. The Representative of FAO drew the attention of the Conference to the need for capacity building in developing countries. He also informed the delegates that FAO/WHO/OIE/WB and WTO developed the joint initiative in the area of food safety and animal and plant health. Assistance could be provided in developing food legislation, in preparing the programmes for investment and in carrying out the necessary institutional arrangements.

Working Group 2

69. Food safety is a complex issue with many dimensions, including public health, scientific, consumer confidence, political and trade. The primary goal is to reduce or prevent foodborne disease by making food safer. However, equivalent levels of risk in different sectors do not always receive the same level of risk management intervention. For example, whereas Salmonella contamination of raw poultry is acceptable in one country and left for the consumer to manage, in Finland and Sweden the industry must ensure that the same products are Salmonella-free for the consumer.

70. Science-based solutions are needed for the introduction of evidence-based policies and to target resources appropriately. Scientific solutions are made difficult by the fact that there can be different scientific opinions and scientific certainty is not always possible. Often insufficient data is available to make a scientific assessment and scientific assessments cannot be carried out quickly enough in a crisis. Furthermore, different scientists holding different views create confusion in the eyes of the consumer. When scientists in the US maintain that growth promoters in beef production are perfectly safe and EU scientists argue that they are unsafe it can be difficult for consumers to have confidence in scientific argument.

71. The public perception of risk can be very different from that of scientists and scientific explanations alone are often not sufficient to allay consumers’ fears. For example, scientists advocate irradiation as a good method to kill spoilage organisms and pathogens, whereas consumers have reservations about using the technology. Similarly, scientists reassure consumers that GMOs from a food safety point of view are as safe as conventionally produced food, yet many consumers are far from satisfied.

72. Many food scares are not associated with adverse health effects and may present little or no risk, but sensational and dramatic coverage by the media can precipitate a consumer reaction out of all proportion to the risk. Risk management should be proportional to the risk to consumers’ health, rather than to the intensity of media coverage. Perception is reality for consumers and unless the level of understanding of the issues is raised with the media and with the public, consumer confidence will continue to be damaged. Furthermore, the level considered acceptable for a specific risk can vary between groups of consumers, groups of scientists and in different countries. Food safety has become politicized both within countries, with politicians accusing each other of mismanagement of crisis etc, and with countries becoming involved in disputes about whose food is the safest. On a larger scale, regions such as the US and EU, argue against each other on the issues of GM food and hormone-produced beef. Much of food legislation and many standards were devised to facilitate trade, rather than to protect consumers, so it can be difficult to separate trade issues from those relating to protecting consumer’s health.

73. Increasing globalization will continue and there is no better way for countries to help each other and build bridges than by engaging in fair trade with mutual trust and using the Codex Alimentarius Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food.

74. It was agreed that countries must apply the same standards of safety and certification to goods they export as they do to goods they import. The challenge is to maintain the diversity of foods available and include as many countries as wish to participate in agrifood trade, whilst harmonizing standards.

75. The issue of when to communicate risk to consumers to avoid food scares caused much debate. Should one go out with a message early to be proactive and ahead of the media or should one wait until a risk management strategy has been devised so consumers can be reassured that control measures are properly managed? Communicating risk on its own without some form of risk management arrangement is not the ideal, but history shows that openness and transparency with consumers from the outset is best.

76. It was agreed that interregional co-operation should be expanded in the fields of capacity building and research. Strengthening the cooperation between scientists and building on existing networks will maximize the health gain achieved. Methods to communicate the decision-making process to consumers and involve consumer representatives where possible should be explored. Good surveillance systems in animals, food and humans are needed if public health priorities are to be identified, trends monitored, interventions evaluated, emerging threats detected and suitable data made available for effective risk assessment. Standard protocols and methods are needed to acquire comparable data and the existing networks attempting to achieve this, such as ENTERNET should be supported. The ability to compare isolates from humans, food and animals using molecular typing facilitates the tracking of problems through the food chain to the point where corrective action is needed. It was agreed that there is ample opportunity for countries with these facilities to help others. Information on the results of all official monitoring tests and on the outcome of official food inspections and other official food control activities should be made public, as openness and transparency build consumer confidence.

77. The EU Rapid Alert system (RAFFS) was explained, including the legal basis of the system, the detailed procedures of its application and how the system operates. Proposed improvements of the system were discussed, as were the underlying principles for such a communication network. The system operational in the EU has proved to be a useful instrument to support consumer protection and international food trade. Accession countries will legally be required to join this system when they become EU Member States. Arrangements are in place for other countries to join RAFFS by bilateral agreement once they comply with the strict criteria for entry. In addition to receiving and providing information on alerts, each country should develop an effective infrastructure to enable the taking of corrective action to control and minimize the adverse human health effects of a contamination incident or to prevent adverse health effects completely.

78. The issue of global alert system was discussed at length and with the increasing global distribution of food this was considered desirable, but difficulties are envisaged. The EU system is mandatory and unless some mechanism is found to make it a requirement for countries participating in a global system to comply, it would be largely ineffective and may not provide added value.

79. This system, involving 22 countries, was described and demonstrated. Its objective is to increase the effectiveness of the flow of agricultural information between Central and Eastern European countries and thus to contribute to the exchange of experiences and to establishing cooperation in the region, to facilitate access to information on agricultural institutions in individual Central and East European countries to residents of this region, to make it easier for inhabitants of remaining regions of the world to get access to information on agriculture in Central and Eastern European countries and to serve as a model for setting up similar Agroweb networks for other regions of the world. It was agreed that this network could also be used as a platform to create a food and nutrition subportal. A pilot project to develop such a network is to commence in the Ukraine.

80. RIKILT, Wageningen University in the Netherlands, co-ordinates two scientific networks: the European Thematic Network on Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Food Crops (ENTRANSFOOD) and the European Food Safety Network (EFSN). ENTRANSFOOD is funded by the European Commission in the fifth framework programme. The objectives of ENTRANSFOOD are:

More information and ENTRANSFOOD results can be found on the website: www.entransfood.nl.

81. EFSN is a network of public institutes working in the field of food safety. EFSN facilitates exchange of information and the development of joint activities concerning:

EFSN links to existing EU structures. More information can be found on the website: www.efsn.net.

82. Both the FAO Biosecurity Portal and the ERIS and the TRAPEX systems were discussed. It was considered that systems to anticipate problems to enable preventive action are needed.

83. The FAO Biosecurity Portal, a web-based information system accessible by a single Internet page, was discussed. It was considered that the portal provides official national and international information on food safety, plant and animal health and provides the opportunity to exchange information. The system is in its initial stages and will require a degree of development in partnership with WHO, OIE and other stakeholders.

FINAL REPORT

I. Introduction