Advanced search

News Room

FSANZ Home > News Room > Food Standards News > 

Food Standards News 65

Full colour version [ pdf ]

In this edition

New Chair for FSANZ Board

CEO’s message

Australia fourth in world food safety rankings

FSANZ meets US Food and Drug Administration

Involving consumers in regulatory processes

Grey nomads urged to be food smart

Issues and crisis management in the food industry

Regulatory update

Primary production and processing standard for meat and meat products

Nanomaterials and nanotechnologies

Social Science Expert Advisory Group

FSANZ 2008 Stakeholder survey

Novel foods specialist with Health Canada visits FSANZ

FSANZ staff visit Foodstuffs New Zealand

FSANZ 2008 Stakeholder Survey

Food Safety, Food Policy and Food Politics: Balancing the demands of FSANZ stakeholders

Call for submissions

New members for our Consumer Liaison Committee

Novel foods specialist with Health Canada visits FSANZ

Third Food Regulators’ Science Network Forum workshop

New Chair for FSANZ Board

A former Commonwealth Ombudsman, Philippa Smith AM, has been appointed as Chair of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Board. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Jan McLucas, said Ms Smith would take up the position for four years, effective from 1 July, 2008.

'In agreement with the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Philippa Smith AM as the new Chair of the FSANZ Board,' Senator McLucas said.

' Ms Smith has had a high-profile career covering wide-ranging roles including those of Commonwealth Ombudsman, and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.

'She has a strong governance, accountability and ethics background, which complements her continued involvement at a high level in federal and state health bodies representing health consumer and general consumer issues.

'This background will bring further diversity and expertise to the FSANZ Board.'  Senator McLucas also announced that former New Zealand member of Parliament, Dianne Yates, had been appointed as a new member of the FSANZ Board for four years.  Senator McLucas said Ms Yates has extensive experience across issues of international trade, health and consumer affairs.

'Ms Yates has vast experience in government and in voluntary sector governance,' Senator McLucas said.' She was, until very recently, Chair of the New Zealand Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee, is a past Chair of the Education and Science Select Committee, and was a member of the Health Select Committee.' Ms Yates has a firm grasp of current debates in science demonstrated through her Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, a scientifically detailed Private Member’s Bill introduced and passed through the New Zealand Parliament,” Senator McLucas said.

'The new board represents an excellent mix of experience with top people in their fields of expertise.'

' This is an exceptionally strong board, which will continue to move us forward in food regulation in Australia and New Zealand'.  ' It will also maintain the strong representation of public health, food science and technology, human nutrition, international trade and consumer issues on the FSANZ Board.'  Senator McLucas took the opportunity to thank the retiring board members for their hard work over the years.

'Rob Knowles and Owen Symmans both made major contributions to food standards in Australia and New Zealand,” Senator McLucas said.  Mr Knowles and Mr Symmans have been on the FSANZ Board since its establishment in July 2002.  Senator McLucas commended Mr Knowles’ leadership as the inaugural FSANZ Board Chair. 'Mr Knowles was instrumental in establishing the operation of the board, Senator McLucas said.

 'As chair for six years, Mr Knowles is to be commended for his significant contribution to changes in the food regulatory system, especially with the implementation of the Council of Australian Government’s reforms.  As a board member for two terms, Mr Symmans’ contribution has also been significant.

“His experience and knowledge of primary industry, having worked for Federated Farmers of New Zealand, the government and the dairy and meat industries, has been of great assistance, particularly during the initial phase of the new food regulatory regime,” Senator McLucas said.

From the CEO

Last month, we conducted an online survey of 210 external members of FSANZ advisory committees – industry representatives, government regulatory partners, scientific experts from academia, public health professionals and consumers.

The results were informative, to say the least.   We divided the survey into two parts:   a survey of stakeholder satisfaction with our performance and a survey of perceptions of our roles and responsibilities.   Preliminary results of the second part are summarised in a separate article in this newsletter on Page ?

The questions dealing with stakeholder satisfaction revealed high levels of trust in FSANZ, our credibility and our scientific capabilities (85% of respondents).   We also found significant satisfaction in the way we include stakeholders in our standard development processes (86%) and our collaboration with other government agencies (72%).

At the other end of the scale, only 57% of respondents believed that we are timely in our standard development processes, including reviewing provisions in the Food Standards Code (52%).   Only 44% of people surveyed were satisfied with our work to facilitate implementation of food standards.

The issue of timeliness is one that we expect to be partially addressed by new arrangements for handling applications to amend the Code that came into effect in October 2007.   Statutory timelines have been shortened.   Processes have been streamlined.

It is interesting to note that timeliness of process was also an issue considered by the Productivity Commission in June, and discussed in a draft report of the Annual Review of Regulatory Burdens on Business: Manufacturing and Distributive Trades.   As the Commission notes in its draft report, the standards development process extends beyond FSANZ to the Ministerial Council which has the authority to request that we review our regulatory decisions.   The Commission has recommended that such requests for review be based on a majority vote by the Ministerial Council as a whole.

We are using the survey results to inform some work we are doing on improving our stakeholder engagement activities.

FSANZ meets US Food and Drug Administration and signs a Confidentiality Agreement on food safety information exchange

The FSANZ CEO, Steve McCutcheon, and Chief Scientist, Dr Paul Brent, met senior officials of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in Washington in April.  The meeting between the two agencies provided a great opportunity for senior executives from both sides to discuss mutual challenges in the food regulatory environment.  Key topics discussed included labelling standards for health claims on food, mandatory and voluntary fortification of foods, novel foods, and management strategies for chemicals migrating from packaging into food and the new area of nanotechnology and its application to food.

During the visit, Mr McCutcheon and Dr Murray Lumpkin, Deputy Commissioner International Affairs at FDA, signed a Confidentiality Agreement to facilitate the exchange of information on food safety matters of mutual interest and concern between the two agencies.  The new agreement marks a new spirit of cooperation, friendship and trust between FSANZ and FDA that will greatly facilitate the work of our two agencies.


Australia fourth in world food safety rankings

Australia is in the top five Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development nations with the safest food supplies, according to a study conducted by Canadian academics.

The ‘Food Safety Performance World Ranking 2008’ placed the UK first and Australia fourth, one ahead of Canada, but all the top five ranked as having ‘superior’ performance. Of 17 countries in the study, those listed from sixth to fourteenth were ‘average’ while the last three were rated ‘poor’. The United States was seventh.

The academics, Sylvain Charlebois, a marketing professor at the School of Business at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, and Chris Yost, a biology professor and the Canada Research Chair in Microbes, the Environment and Food Safety, designed the study to show the relative strengths and weaknesses in Canada’s food safety systems and processes. It was sponsored by the university’s Research Network on Food Safety.

The study also investigated the underlying causes of Canada’s performance and discussed policies that might help improve Canadian food safety in the future. It ranked nations according to their abilities to handle 45 indicators, such as the effectiveness of recalls and communications, in four critical areas:

The consumer affairs category measured policies and outcomes to see how well countries connect with their own consumers. It considered surveillance, hygiene practices and information accessibility.

The biosecurity category mainly dealt with a country’s capacity to contain all risks related to food safety. It included biosecurity measures for plants and livestock. It also considered the rate of use of agricultural chemicals, veterinary drugs and of science-based data.

The governance and recalls category looked at the effectiveness of food safety-related domestic regulations and governance. It considered the number of public/private partnerships, the number of business-funded projects, the existence of risk management plans, the level of clarity of food recall programs and the number of food recalls.  Traceability and recalls measured the ability of a country to identify the past or current location of food items, as well as to know a food item’s history. The scientists measured the level of harmonization between jurisdictions, the prominence of world-known programs and the depth of traceability programs.

The authors said: “The purpose of our benchmarking framework was to identify and evaluate common elements among global food safety systems. The primary objective of this study therefore was not simply to identify which country offers the safest food products to its citizens.  ' Rather, the emphasis was to recognize which country employs better practices to contain risks related to safety within food systems.'

The report focused on indicators that can be influenced by public policy and took into account those indicators which can be modified by individual, organizational, or public efforts. Indicators may directly or indirectly influence output. For example, a policy that makes livestock identification mandatory may augment the capacity of a country to track meat products across the food chain, and thus reduce food-borne illness.

The data for the study were based on secondary sources, such as the OECD, the World Health Organization, the United Nations, national statistical agencies, and other food safety regulatory organisations based in the countries under study.  The authors initially wanted to compare all 30 OECD countries but dropped the rest because their populations were too small (Luxembourg and Iceland both have less than a million people) or their GDP fell below the mean of OECD countries.

They also debated including emerging economies such as India and China. However, after testing the results of including several of these countries, they felt they performed poorly on food safety indicators. Further, they did not want to include countries where food security is still a significant concern.  They made special reference to Australia, saying its performance was unanticipated, and praised the food industry for making the ranking possible. Australia ranked first in Governance and Recalls, second in Traceability and  Management and fourth overall. 'Australia’s performance in both these categories was influenced by the private sector’s involvement in governance and traceability systems,' the authors said.

'There is an established system of industry-level national governance by statutorily-created limited companies. These companies are run by members and funded by levies. This strong system of funding and representation has helped certain Australian industries take the national and forward-thinking approach required to increase competitiveness in today’s global marketplace.

The full list:

  1. United Kingdom (5) Superior
  2. Japan (2) Superior
  3. Denmark (28) Superior
  4. Australia (14) Superior
  5. Canada (9) Superior
  6. Finland (33) Average
  7. United States (1) Average
  8. Switzerland (20) Average
  9. Norway (25) Average
  10. Germany (3) Average
  11. Italy (7) Average
  12. Netherlands (16) Average
  13. Sweden (19) Average
  14. Austria (26) Average
  15. France (6) Poor
  16. Belgium (18) Poor
  17. Ireland (31) Poor

The numbers in brackets show the country’s world ranking based on GDP (Nominal) in 2007.


The Importance of Involving Consumers in Regulatory Processes

 FSANZ staff learned first hand about the importance of talking to consumers from Board member and consumer advocate, Dr Pamela Williams.Dr Williams, appointed to the Board in June 2007, has a broad knowledge of Australian consumer rights and consumer affairs policy. She has lectured on consumer rights and responsibilities at several institutions, including the Deakin University.

'Organisations are increasingly seeking consumers to help them,' Dr Williams said at her seminar in May. 'Usually an organisation does not know what to do with them, even though it has a mandate that it has to have a consumer committee.’  This attitude should change as ever more convincing evidence emerges that consumer feedback and participation improve outcomes, quality and safety in a multitude of fields. 'We should take note that it was consumers who drove the issues of labelling for genetically modified foods, irradiated foods and country of origin, Dr Williams said.

Consumer participation can:

But who are consumers? Well, all of us, Dr Williams said. And a consumer representative, as well as being a consumer, is someone who voices the consumer perspective and takes part in the decision-making process on behalf of other consumers. 'A representative is a consumer or community member who is nominated by, and accountable to, an organisation of consumers or community members,” Dr Williams said. “They are there to represent the formal views of a particular group and report back to that group. They must be completely clear who they represent. It is important to understand the circumstances in which they were appointed before they can assess their obligations.'

Consumers on committees have a number of expectations, including being treated as an equal member of the committee. They also should expect to be heard, listened to, and understood by the rest of the committee, and be able to ask for clarification and more information, especially if jargon is used. Consumers are not just taking up space at the table. They should receive all relevant information and an agenda for the meeting with enough time to read, understand and consult consumer groups and other consumers before the meeting. They should also expect that the committee procedures allow them to return to their support system. Perhaps most importantly, they are entitled to disagree with the rest of the committee without being judged and to have their views recorded. They should also expect to be able to talk to others about information from the committee and its deliberations and processes.

From this, participation occurs, which is when community members become meaningfully involved in decision making. Research shows that participation is valued because it is an aid to improve outcomes, an important democratic right and a mechanism to ensure accountability.   For food consumers especially, participation is important because food producers may have different views than consumers and both need to come to a shared understanding.

There are many different types of participation and these have been commonly grouped as:

Dr Williams has analysed all her knowledge about consumers and participation and applied it to food and FSANZ. She said that for consumers to participate in food standards and give direction to all stakeholders – including FSANZ - seven objectives must be met.

Organisations must:

  1. take consumer participation seriously by ‘doing it with us not for us’
  2. share information to create consumer friendly access
  3. improve communication between all stakeholders
  4. build the capacity of all stakeholders to participate
  5. integrate participation into quality and safety programs
  6. learn from the experience and the evidence of consumer participation
  7. ensure participation resources are available to all stakeholders.

Ultimately though, Dr Williams said consumer committee members should not be afraid to ask questions, especially when they are often dealing with scientific issues, as at FSANZ. However, the first question consumer committee members should ask themselves is: 'What are we here for?' The second is for the organisers, in our case it’s ourselves at FSANZ, to ask: 'What is it we want from our consumers? Are we holding this consumer committee meeting because we have to? Or is it because we really believe consumers add value to our work?' Only when these are successfully resolved can the interplay begin, a process Dr Williams said might take two years.

' I think that’s how long it can take for everyone to realise what they are supposed to be doing,” she said. ' We should think about this because two years is the expectation for consumer committee members to move on.' Dr Williams is honorary secretary and health advisor to the National Council of Women of Victoria, and chairs the Community Advisory Committee of Southern Health.

Nomads urged to be food-smart

 They are known as grey nomads and at any time there are, perhaps, 100,000 of them travelling around Australia pulling a caravan or driving a motor home. They are the retirees who don’t want conventional retirement and are much happier to be seeing the marvels of this country for themselves - on the road.

However, even the toughest, most enterprising nomad can get sick, particularly in remote areas where personal hygiene is harder to maintain. That’s why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Jan McLucas, has urged grey nomads to be food-smart when they hit the highways this year.

' With the season now upon us when many Australians take to the road, it is important to remember basic safety precautions when handling food,” she told a representative group of grey nomads in Parliament House while launching On the Road, a fact sheet produced by the Food Safety Information Council for older travellers.   Every year about 5.4 million Australians get food poisoning, and 120 people die as a result, Senator McLucas reminded the nomads.

' Food safety is especially important to older people, who potentially have less immunity against infections, and in particular less digestive system capacity to destroy bacteria ingested in food'.

' Many grey nomads from southern Australia head north during winter, and they are often unaware of the extra risk posed by the hotter and more humid climate when preparing and storing food.'

The basic precautions are very simple, and include:

“The tips prepared by the Food Safety Information Council are extremely important when travelling because the food safety risks are greater with food prepared outdoors or in cramped kitchenettes; fridges are smaller and may be shut down when travelling, and clean running water may not be available,” Senator McLucas said. ' It’s great to se people enjoying the outdoor life, but imagine what it would be like if you got food poisoning when you were in a remote area, a long way from a doctor'. ' The travelling life should be carefree - without the worry of food poisoning, which is preventable with just a little care to cook, chill, clean and separate our food.' The On the Road fact sheet is available at What’s New, on the Food Safety Information Council’s web site: www.foodsafety.asn.au


Regulatory update

Health, nutrition and related claims

We are continuing to work on the proposed new Standard for Nutrition, Health and Related Claims (draft Standard 1.2.7), one of the most difficult Standards we have ever had to create. The FSANZ Board approved the Final Assessment Report for Nutrition, Health and Related Claims (P293) in March 2008 and the Ministerial Council considered it in May.

In its communiqué, the Ministerial Council called for a review so we have now begun considering the issues raised and the timeline for the completion of the review. Many of the issues are not new but reflect divergent views on some aspects of draft Standard 1.2.7, including the substantiation of general level health claims, enforcement issues and the regulatory approach for nutrition content claims (not having to meet the nutrient profiling scoring criteria).

You can see the criteria for the review on the Department of Health and Ageing’s website at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/foodsecretariat-request-reviews .  

While waiting for the outcome of the Ministerial Council’s consideration of the draft Standard, we began work on a user guide for the new Standard. The user guide will provide guidance on a clause by clause basis as well as on a topic by topic basis to meet the diverse needs of users. The clause by clause section, which follows the same order as in the draft Standard, will explain the meaning of each clause and is mainly aimed at assisting government officers in understanding the intent of Standard 1.2.7, for enforcement purposes.   We are designing the topic by topic section to help manufacturers and retailers, for example, go about making a general level health claim. We aim to release the first version of the guide at the time Standard 1.2.7 is gazetted.

Labelling alcohol products

Health advisory label about the risks of consuming alcohol during pregnancy

FSANZ is considering an application from the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand, which has called for mandatory health advisory labels on alcoholic drinks containers warning of the risks of drinking alcohol when planning to become pregnant and during pregnancy. We released an initial assessment report for pregnancy in December 2007 and have now completed a draft risk assessment.   The Ministerial Council has since requested us also to consider mandatory health warnings in relation to binge drinking (see below).

We are considering the most effective use of resources, the commonality in the literature on the effectiveness of labelling for both projects, differences in the target populations, health effects, types of warning label and health impact for the two projects, and the management of transition periods (if labelling is introduced).

Health advisory label in relation to binge drinking

As noted above, the Ministerial Council has asked us to consider mandatory health warnings on packaged alcohol. In making this request, the Ministerial Council requested that we take into account the work of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy and any other relevant ministerial councils, any relevant guidelines in New Zealand, the relevant recommendations from the upcoming National Health and Medical Research Council’s alcohol guidelines for low risk drinking, and to consider the broader community and population-wide context of the misuse of alcohol. The request from the Ministerial Council was made in the context of the Council of Australian Government’s concerted approach to curb alcohol misuse and binge drinking among young people.  

We have discussed the request with the Department of Health and Ageing because the Department’s Population Health Division administers the broader National Binge Drinking Strategy and is already considering the effectiveness of health advisory labels on packaged alcohol.  We have begun this project as a Review and will initially present the outcomes of an external literature review and a benefit-cost analysis to the Ministerial Council. This will provide the Council with an opportunity to evaluate the relevant scientific evidence and give further direction to FSANZ on the basis of that evidence.


Primary production and processing standard for meat and meat products

We plan to ask the Board for approval later this year to seek public comment on a primary production and processing (PPP) standard for meat and meat products.  The potential scope of the work is extensive. It could include:

To help us scope the proposal, we convened the first meeting of the Standard Development Committee on 27 June 2008. We discussed the existing regulatory and non-regulatory food safety management strategies that are relevant to the Australian meat industry and existing risk assessments, as we are aware of the considerable work already carried out by the industry to determine risks and control measures for their products. Given the size of the task, we intend to adopt a staged approach to the development of this standard.


Nanomaterials and nanotechnologies

FSANZ, in conjunction with the broader Australian and international regulatory community, continues to actively prepare for the challenges presented to regulators by nanotechnologies and nanomaterials.  Under the Australian Government’s National Nanotechnology Strategy, FSANZ is working within a whole of government framework to ensure that any future potential health and safety issues regarding nanotechnology in food are addressed.   

FSANZ has set up an in-house nanotechnology steering group to keep abreast of development and deal with future issues, particularly food contact nanomaterials.   As part of this we are proactively gathering information from all available scientific sources and have established comprehensive networks and contacts for exchange of information on the use of nanotechnology both within Australia and internationally.   For example, FSANZ funded and seconded an officer to the World Health Organization / Food and Agriculture Organization to undertake an international expert consultation on nanotechnology in food and agricultural products.

FSANZ also hosted a workshop on 6 June 2008 to share information across all the relevant regulatory bodies.   Regulators will continue to meet and share information on regulatory risk assessments and risk based decision making.


Social Science Expert Advisory Group

FSANZ established the Social Science Expert Advisory Group (SSEAG) in May 2008. We set up the panel of experts in various social science fields to provide advice to the organisation on aspects of consumer research undertaken by our Consumer and Social Sciences Unit. This will ensure reliability and robustness of the consumer and social sciences that we employ when developing food standards. 

Members of the SSEAG include: Associate Professor John Coveney (Flinders University, South Australia), Professor David de Vaus (La Trobe University, Victoria), Dr Philip Mohr (CSIRO Human Nutrition, South Australia), Professor Elspeth Probyn (University of Sydney, New South Wales), Associate Professor Kenneth Reed (Deakin University, Victoria), Professor Chris Ryan (University of Waikato Management School, New Zealand), Professor Carlene Wilson (Flinders University/The Cancer Council South Australia). Two FSANZ Fellows with social science backgrounds, Professor Richard Shepherd (University of Surrey, United Kingdom) and Professor John Cary (Victoria University, Victoria) are honorary members of the SSEAG also. Specific expertise of the SSEAG comprises social research methods and research design, social and behavioural psychology, risk perception, risk evaluation and decision-making, sociology, statistics and research ethics.

The SSEAG held its first meeting on 18 June 2008 in Canberra. This was successful in informing members about FSANZ and the food regulatory environment, and encouraged discussion and input into the proposed operation of the SSEAG and key upcoming social science projects.   These include projects on how consumers use nutrition labels, the effectiveness of health warning labels as risk management measures, and a scheme to assess the quality of consumer and social research for use in food standards development


Issues and Crisis Management in the Food Industry

While food safety in Australia is ‘superior’ and ranks fourth in the world, we cannot afford to be complacent and should be prepared as if a food crisis is imminent. That was the message from experts at the Issues and Crisis Management in the Food Industry conference held in Sydney in June. Speaker after speaker warned that food crises invariably occur just when you think you’re in control and, also, invariably occur when the Chief Executive Officer is out of touch overseas, the media boss is sick and the email system is playing up.

Steve Newton, National Technical Services Manager with Metcash, a leading food marketing and distribution company, gave a chilling portrayal of what will happen when the next flu pandemic hits. The number of human deaths from Avian Influenza H5N1 has been steadily climbing and is now 241 from 382 cases. This may not sound like many over five years considering the number of deaths annually from war, natural disaster and disease. But it will get worse, said Mr Newton. And it’s not a question of if but when.

Most people only have food supplies for two days yet a pandemic will last 14 days at the least. In that time, about half the population will be directly or indirectly affected. Power and water supplies will be intermittent at best and fresh food will be hard to get. We won’t be able to rely on refrigeration. Transport, government departments and industry will effectively shut down.

Cafes and restaurants will be closed under group gathering restrictions imposed by health authorities to stop the flu spreading, making it even harder to feed yourself. However, the food industry has been consulting with government and there is a crisis management plan. It was first revealed last February when the food industry announced it had created a Pantry List, which is a list of essential items that all householders should keep in their pantries to keep them going for a two week period of isolation.

Beyond surviving a pandemic, the conference also heard from experts advising what to do in the event of a range of other crises, particularly foodborne disease outbreaks, and the importance of having a crisis management plan in place. FSANZ’s Amanda Hill, Section Manager of Food Safety, spoke about the National Food Incident Response Protocol, which was created in 2006. It has already been triggered ten times and is constantly reviewed. Ms Hill said that by the end of 2008, the protocol will be completely revised to take account of the experiences gained from past food incidents.  

Apart from managing the actual crisis, there is also the need to manage the media, which love a crisis and scary ‘bad news’ stories. So part of any crisis management plan must include a media component with a media-savvy, unflappable front person to tell the public honestly and simply what is going on and how authorities are dealing with it. An example of how much importance some organisations place on their public image came from the UK Food Standards Authority, which spends one third of its budget on communications.

A wide range of crisis management case studies were presented, such as the floods in New Orleans, extortion demands, the NSW equine influenza outbreak, South Australia’s Garibaldi poisoning and the UK’s mad cow disease. The good and not so good aspects of these cases were put on the table for everyone to see. The consensus is that all organisations should have a crisis management plan and team in place and they should test it regularly and revise its operations after seeing it work during exercises. They should also have a thorough communications plan and be prepared to tell not just the public but their own workers and stakeholders honestly what is happening.

There is a quote from fictional White House Press Secretary C.J. Cregg, a principal character in the US TV series the West Wing, which sums up how essential communications are during crisis management. Talking about an outbreak of mad cow disease that the president wants to keep secret for three days – long enough for the US Department of Agriculture to get organised – C.J. says: ' The public will not forgive a president who withheld information that could have helped them or saved lives. Information breeds confidence. Silence breeds fear.'


FSANZ staff visit Foodstuffs New Zealand

FSANZ staff from our Canberra and Wellington offices ventured out on an industry visit to ‘Foodstuffs’ in April 2008 to see how the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) is applied in practice.  Foodstuffs is one of New Zealand’s biggest grocery distributors, and consists of three separate, regionally based, retailer-owned co-operative companies and a federation body, Foodstuffs (NZ) Ltd.  

Their principal activities include management of the supply chain for groceries, fresh foods, and associated merchandise for members, incorporating advertising and promotional activities.   They also provide support services for members such as accounting, information technology, and retail operations support.   Foodstuffs developed Food Labelling and Food Safety Programs in 2001 to support the stores they serve in meeting the requirements of the New Zealand Food Act (1981) and the Code.  

The two programs are managed by the company’s ‘legislation staff’ who continually update them and train the retail store managers on their use and on legislative requirements. The company informed FSANZ staff about the ‘Nutritional Evaluator’, a Foodstuffs database program it uses to evaluate recipes and provide the nutrition labels for food products made in store and foods that are displayed unpackaged before sale, typically deli and bakery items.   

FSANZ staff then visited one of the supermarket chains to see first hand how the information is transferred from Foodstuffs headquarters to the retail manager in store, and then to the individual food departments, where the food labels are printed out and placed on the food items to be bought by the consumer.   FSANZ staff learnt not just about the implementation and operation of food regulation in a large business environment, but also about the challenges posed by ensuring consistency and compliance throughout the organisation.     


FSANZ 2008 Stakeholder Survey

We have received the results of the second FSANZ stakeholder survey which shows we need to communicate better with our stakeholders about what we do – and don’t do.  This survey had a broader reach than the first, aiming to discover stakeholder satisfaction, or otherwise, with our regulatory role, responsibilities and overall performance. The survey canvassed all 208 committee members drawn from external members of FSANZ committees representing government agencies, the food industry, health professionals and consumers, with the aim of revealing any misconceptions they might have about FSANZ.

We asked people to agree or not agree with statements about our roles as a regulatory agency. Results portrayed inF igure 1show a generally high level of understanding of FSANZ’s main roles of setting food standards and providing information to the public about provisions in the Food Standards Code.  

There was less appreciation for our work in coordinating food recalls, food surveillance activities and providing safety assessments to jurisdictional agencies.  Such responses are not surprising.   They reflect the expected knowledge of the stakeholder sub groups represented in the survey.Figure 2summarises responses to ten roles for which we have no statutory responsibility.   As the results show, between 21% and 78% of respondents wrongly believed that we are responsible for at least one of these roles.

Of particilar concern is the finding that three-quarters of the people surveyed believe that FSANZ has a responsibility to develop policy guidelines for food regulation and to advise industry on how to comply with food standards. Further, 21% of respondents incorrectly believed that we would ban the sale of food in response to public outcry and would take animal welfare issues into account in our standard-development work (not included in Figure 2).

These are interesting findings.   They demonstrate that we have not been totally successful in articulating what we do – and what we don’t do – to our stakeholders.   In a complex, inter-related regulatory system, it is essential that every element is aware of each other’s role.   We intend to analyse the findings in more detail through follow-up interviews with selected respondents to establish whether this is simply a communication failure or some deeper issue within the food regulatory system.

Graphs avaiable in thefull colour  pdf version of this newsletter


Food Safety, Food Policy and Food Politics: Balancing the demands of FSANZ stakeholders

FSANZ Chief Executive Officer Steve McCutcheon attended the Ausdrinks annual conference in May and delivered an address on the challenges faced by FSANZ in developing standards when there are many competing views and interests at play in the general community. n summary, he said that everyone has a stake in the food supply, but FSANZ as the national standard setting body has to balance everyone’s interests and conflicting priorities to end up with standards – enshrined in the Food Standards Code (the Code) - that protect consumers from unsafe food.

Once these standards are developed, the state and territory governments, with support from local government, are responsible for enforcing them in Australia.   In New Zealand, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has this role.   'Food safety is the primary criterion for all FSANZ’s work, but we are increasingly being asked to develop standards that seek to address broader population health issues – such as the inadequacy of folic acid and iodine in the food supply – on behalf of government,” Mr McCutcheon said.

' We are also mindful of our role in regulating food labels to provide consumers with the information necessary to make informed buying decisions and to alert vulnerable sub-populations to substances in food that may harm them. 'The process for developing new standards or amending existing ones is a very open and transparent one.   For most applications to change the Code, we can do our job in nine months.   For more complex matters, it may take 12 months or longer.   Periods of public consultation are built into the process, during which we attempt to plug any gaps in our evidence base (science and non-science).'

He indicated that FSANZ has six applications from the beverages industry to amend the Code on its books.   In no particular order, these include the use of steviol sweeteners, fluoride in bottled water, phytosterols in orange juice, foods mixed with formulated caffeinated beverages and cyclamate permissions.   Several of these applications are contentious. 'The beverages industry is highly innovative and today’s food regulatory system has been designed to encourage and facilitate this innovation.   It is in the interests of the industry that FSANZ does a good job, because a well-regulated industry generates public confidence for the industry’s products – and that’s to the benefit of us all.'

His closing message was that setting food standards is not a popularity contest, driven by the loudest or most influential voice.   At some point during the consultation process, FSANZ must decide that it possesses enough information to make a regulatory decision. This decision may not be a consensus of opposing views.   We will always come down on the side of a safe food supply and well-informed consumers, backed up by sound science and hard evidence where it is available.


Call for submissions

FSANZ invites written submissions for the purpose of preparing draft food regulatory measures 6pm (Canberra time) 3 September 2008:

Draft assessment

FSANZ invites written submissions for the purpose of making a Final Assessment by 6pm (Canberra time) 17 September 2008:

Discussion paper


New members for our Consumer Liaison Committee

The first term of appointment for the foundation members of the FSANZ Consumer Liaison Committee (CLC) concluded in May 2008.   However, the Board agreed to extend the time limit until 17 July 2008 so FSANZ could complete its recruitment processes for a new term.   We invited CLC members interested in serving a second term to submit a new application and asked peak consumer bodies in Australia and New Zealand to nominate a representative of their organisation to serve on the CLC.  

We received more than 150 applications for six available positions on the CLC.   Sadly for the well intentioned applicants, the majority of them were not true ‘grassroots’ members and therefore we could not consider them suitable for short-listing.   The Board was nonetheless impressed with the large number of applicants and endorsed the six most suitable for committee membership at the FSANZ31 Board meeting.

The Board also endorsed the renominated Australian consumer organisation representative from CHOICE, Ms Clare Hughes, and Consumer NZ’s Ms Belinda Allan.   The successful applicants included two of the CLC foundation members – Dr Erin O’Connor and Ms Eileen Clark - and four new grassroots members from Western Australia (Ms Vicki Potter), the Northern Territory (Ms Jenni Butterworth), South Australia (Mr Mark Robinson) and Queensland (Mr George Seymour-Dearness).

At an induction day in July, we introduced the four new grassroots members to the role of FSANZ and how the Committee works.   They also heard introductory talks by senior FSANZ staff on subjects such as food law regulation, communication and consumer research.


Novel foods specialist with Health Canada visits FSANZ

Dr William Yan from Health Canada visited FSANZ mid-May and presented a seminar about the different approaches Canada and Australia have towards regulating novel foods. Dr Yan is Director of Health Effects Division One in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in Health Canada.  

In his seminar ‘Assessing Novelty Rather Than Technology’ Dr Yan said Canada first defined novel foods in 1999 when Health Canada’s Novel Foods Regulation came into effect.  He said Canada’s definition covers three categories of foods:

'We say genetic modification means changing the heritable traits of a plant, animal or microorganism by means of intentional manipulation. It means we capture organisms not covered by GM regulations elsewhere in the world.’ Health Canada believes any new plant variety may potentially pose risks to the environment, food or livestock feed, regardless of the genetic modification method used to produce it.  'We focus on the novelty of the food rather than on how someone has arrived at the novelty – it is triggered by the novelty, not the process.’  However, Canadian critics, particularly in the food industry, say this definition is not specific enough and creates regulatory uncertainty. They are pressuring Health Canada to qualify it.

Dr Yan said when Canada first passed its legislation the focus was mainly on GMOs, which was what everyone from scientists to consumers were talking about at the time. Since then, they have adapted the laws to the non-GM novel foods we are seeing more of today. Canada developed its guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods following expert consultations with the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in line with principles set out by Codex. These guidelines were updated in 2006.

Health Canada’s food safety assessments use teams made up of separate bureaus within the department. These represent expertise in chemical safety, nutritional science and microbiological and molecular biology. Each of the three groups does an independent review, with each review afterwards being put together into one report. Health Canada has approved more than 100 novel foods since 1994, mostly in the recombinant DNA category, though the trend has now moved to non-recombinant DNA foods. ‘Our product-based approach is quite different, mainly because it means we are having to look for almost everything,’ Dr Yan said. ‘It creates some trade issues because we are regulating foods that no one else in the world does.’

But while Canada’s novel food definition is clearly science-based, food manufacturers are pressuring Health Canada to be more specific because the amount of explanation they have to provide, and interpretations of their explanations by scientists, means their foods are tied up in red tape far longer than anywhere else in the world. 'Another criticism of us by anti-GM groups is that our regulations are a scam designed to hide GM foods from scrutiny because they come under all the other foods.’ He said Health Canada is now moving toward activities that strengthen the risk-based approach to allocating regulatory resources to the pre-market assessment of novel foods.

This will involve improving the efficiency of the pre-market assessment process, clarifying novelty triggers, and developing a tiered-approach to food risk assessment. Dr Yan headed Health Canada’s Food Directorate team responsible for the regulation and safety assessment of novel foods (including GM foods) from 2001 to 2008.  

He has been the Head of the Canadian delegation for the OECD Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds since 2002 and was Canada’s Head Delegate to the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Ottawa.


Third Food Regulators’ Science Network Forum Workshop

FSANZ hosted the third Food Regulators’ Science Network Forum (SNF) Workshop on Genetically Modified (GM) Food Safety Assessments in May 2008. This workshop was part of a series being conducted under the FSANZ Science Strategy 2006-09 and its purpose was to inform and give others the opportunity to comment on the way we do our GM risk assessments. The function of these workshops generally is to provide a forum for jurisdictions to discuss a variety of scientific issues relevant to the food supply in Australia and New Zealand.

Delegates attending the workshop included SNF members or their representatives, several FSANZ Fellows and Board members, members of government agencies and FSANZ staff.   Visiting Canadian expert, Dr William Yan, Health Canada, opened the workshop with a keynote address on ‘The Canadian GM experience’. Other presentations included international developments in the safety assessment of GM food, how we conduct safety assessments, GM food labelling, detection, consumer attitudes and animal feeding studies.

The workshop also featured an open panel discussion that examined issues such as future regulatory and scientific challenges for GM and how jurisdictions are managing enforcement issues . These sessions gave participants a real insight into the breadth of issues that we cover at FSANZ in our safety assessment of GM foods. Of particular interest, the open panel discussion touched on how FSANZ may deal with potential future applications relating to GM animals as well as GM plants with complex genetic modifications, such as for drought tolerance.

So far, we have not received an application to approve food derived from a GM animal, though we can expect such applications in the not too distant future. Having been at the forefront of the development of international guidelines for the safety assessment of food derived from GM animals, we are confident that our current regulatory framework and extensive networks with other food regulators will ensure we can meet this future challenge.