Food Surveillance News
Spring-Summer 2005 Edition
In this issue…
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Microbiological survey of freshly squeezed juices - Victoria
Chemical residues in domestic and imported aquacultured fish
Changing public attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods
Survey shows that imported horticulture is safe
Recent research work on Nutrition, Health and Related Claims
A survey of microbiological quality of pork pies - Western Australian Food Monitoring Program
Accuracy of nutrition information panels 2000-2002
- a survey by the West Australian Food Monitoring Program
+++++++++
Editorial
Barbara Wilson
Chief Executive Officer, Safe Food Queensland
Chair, Implementation Subcommittee (ISC)
I am delighted to provide an update on what has been achieved by the Implementation Subcommittee ( ISC ) following nine meetings and a number of workshops involving representatives for all jurisdictions ( States, Territories, the Commonwealth and New Zealand).
ISC has been in operation for just over two years, its main function is to develop and oversight a consistent approach to implementing and enforcing food regulation and standards. This role encompasses food sourced from both domestic and export sources.
ISC reports to the Food Regulation Standing Committee about a range of issues, including how standards are implemented, enforcement and surveillance.
Results from the ISC process include a national strategy and three year work plan for implementing and enforcing food regulation ( endorsed by Ministerial Council in October 2005), development of
- a watchdog function for Health Claims
- a response plan for food related incidents
- a national survey plan
The survey planning is a good example of how information collected nationally can assist regulators in all jurisdictions to identify key compliance issues and make appropriate decisions about resource allocations.
Information gathering that is planned for a predetermined purpose, in this case co-ordination of national regulatory efforts, sounds like a good thing but is easier said than done. The working group on surveys established by ISC has produced the goods and an initial round of survey results have been obtained.
Communicating the results of surveys and research findings that influence our thinking on food safety is a vital part of the regulators’ responsibility
I am pleased that the National Coordinated Surveillance Plan is off to a very good start thanks to strong support from Marion Healy and FSANZ as well as members of the working group from agencies attending ISC.
This edition of the newsletter highlights recent activities in this area and indicates the increasing emphasis that this activity is receiving.
+++++++++
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
FSANZ is currently preparing to implement a new standard in Chapter 4 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Chapter 4 will see national food regulation extend across all parts of the food chain, including primary production, processing and retail – in essence from paddock to plate. One of these new standards due, to be introduced in 2006, is the Primary Production and Processing Standard for Poultry Meat. This standard will complement the existing Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards.
In order to assist in the evaluation of the implementation of this standard in the future, FSANZ has identified the need for benchmark data on awareness, knowledge and behaviour of poultry meat businesses, government enforcement officers and consumers in relation to food safety issues. These benchmark data will provide FSANZ with information about the poultry meat industry before the standard is implemented in all States and Territories in Australia.
FSANZ identified three key stakeholder groups for the research: the poultry meat industry including poultry growers, processors, and wholesalers and retailers; government enforcement officers at the state and local government level; and consumers. Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) surveys were conducted for all three stakeholder groups. Questions were asked of all stakeholders about their awareness and knowledge of food safety practices and sources of information on food safety issues.
For the food industry and enforcement officers additional questions were asked on the potential for different stages in the food chain to lead to foodborne illness, on awareness of the FSANZ Food Standards Code (Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards and the proposed Chapter 4 Standards) and about the regulations and guidelines currently used by each sector. Enforcement officers were also asked about their current responsibilities with respect to the poultry meat industry, where the gaps in regulations were with regards to preventing foodborne illness and how their responsibilities may change once the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard for Poultry Meat is implemented.
This report comprises a short Executive Summary of the research project, an Interpretative Summary of the main findings for each of the three stakeholder groups and the main report with the methodology used for each stakeholder group and full results. It should be noted that research findings are based on the telephone surveys report on people’s opinions, awareness and knowledge of food safety issues not on actual practices.
The full report is available from the FSANZ website: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/mediareleasespublications/publications/evaluationreportseries/benchmarkresearchonthepoultrymeatindustry/index.cfm
+++++++++
Microbiological survey of freshly squeezed juices - Victoria
A statewide microbiological survey has shown that freshly squeezed juices, when prepared and handled properly, are safe for the consumer. The survey, conducted to improve knowledge and understanding of the microbiological risk of freshly squeezed fruit and vegetable juices, involved the collection of samples by Environmental Health Officers from 20 councils across Victoria. The 291 juice samples collected between March and May 2004 were analysed for Salmonellaspp., Escherichia coli,Listeria monocytogenes and coagulase positive staphylococci. Sample pH levels were also determined.
Overall, the microbiological quality of the juice samples submitted was good, with only one sample being assessed as potentially hazardous. This is very positive news for the growing number of people who consume freshly squeezed juices and for the businesses that are meeting that demand. The 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey showed that 35 per cent of males and 37 per cent of females surveyed consumed fruit juice type products daily.
While the study results were extremely good, businesses that produce freshly squeezed juices should always adhere to safe food handling and preparation practices, as documented in their Food Safety Program, to prevent any problems.
For further information contact Paul Goldsmith, Food Safety Unit on (03) 9637 4943 or email: Paul.Goldsmith@dhs.vic.gov.au or visit http://www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/downloads/fruit_juice_survey_report_aug05.pdf for the full report.
+++++++++
Chemical residues in domestic and imported aquacultured fish survey article
Australians currently consume around 13 kg of fish per person per year, and total domestic consumption is about 200,000 tonnes per annum. Fish forms a significant component of the total diet, and although its consumption is below meats such as poultry, beef and sheep, it is the only primary product where a significant proportion of that consumed is imported into Australia.
The long-term trend is for per capita consumption of fish to increase in Australia. There is also a significant global trend for the proportion of aquacultured (farmed) fish consumed to increase as opposed to wild caught.
Over recent years there have been reports from overseas regulatory agencies that some aquacultured food may contain residues of antimicrobials. Given these allegations and regulatory findings reported internationally, FSANZ conducted a national survey in cooperation with food regulatory agencies in all Australian States and Territories, primarily to indicate whether there is an issue with non-compliance with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code(the Code) regarding the levels of antimicrobial residues present in some farmed fish. This survey was part of the Coordinated Survey Plan.
The survey tested a total of 60 fish samples for 56 chemical residues. Countries of origin of the fish samples purchased included Australia, China, Myanmar/Burma, Norway, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. Fish were sampled based on research of the market so that they were representative of the fish available to consumers in Australia. The variety of fish samples that were collected for analyses included Barramundi, Salmon, Basa, Rainbow Trout, Tilapia, Milk Fish and Silver Perch.
Graph 1: Total Number of Fish Samples Collected & Analysed by Country of Origin
Of the 56 antimicrobials tested, 54 were not detected in any sample. However, trace levels of leucomalachite green and in some cases malachite green that exceeded the specified level of quantification of 0.002 mg/kg were detected in 10 of the 60 fish samples collected. These positive detections were found in 3 domestic fish samples (2 silver perch and 1 trout) and 7 imported samples (all basa) from Vietnam. The residues of malachite/leucomalachite reported were at low levels i.e. all less than 0.14 mg/kg. There was no trace of any other antimicrobial found in these fish samples.
Graph 2: Levels of Leucomalachite Green and/or Malachite Green Found in Fish Samples
Malachite green is a synthetic dye used to colour textiles and paper and is also used in the ornamental fish trade (e.g. goldfish) for treating fish parasites. It is not registered for use in aquaculture in Australia. Leucomalachite green is formed from the metabolism of malachite green.
FSANZ conducted a risk assessment to determine if the consumption of the antimicrobial malachite green and leucomalachite green, at the levels detected in this survey, posed a threat to public health and safety. The risk assessment concluded that the public health risk associated with low residues of malachite green and leucomalachite green in aquacultured fish is very low.
While overall the findings of the survey indicated that chemical contamination of fish is generally low, the presence of malachite/leucomalachite green in samples identified a compliance issue (the level of non-compliance for both domestic and imported aquacultured fish was similar, around 17%). These findings gave rise to a number of management actions, which included:
- Jurisdictions who had detections in domestically farmed samples all responded with further investigatory and follow up action.
- FSANZ prepared a fact sheet on Malachite green in aquacultured fish for posting on their website. A full report on the study is also available on the website.
- The Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS), who have responsibility for imported food under the Imported Food Control Act 1992 initiated random testing of relevant imported fish for malachite/leucomalachite green on 26 September 2005.
In summary, a compliance issue in relation to malachite green was identified as a result of the survey and appropriate follow-up actions have been taken by the jurisdictions and AQIS in response to the survey’s findings. The lack of detections of any other chemical residues and the conclusion that the low level detections of malachite/leucomalachite green present a very low risk to public health and safety are important findings given there have been overseas reports of unapproved chemical residues being found in fish.
+++++++++
Changing public attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods
Craig Cormick, Manager of Public Awareness, Biotechnology Australia
Once upon a time it used to be a reasonably simple task to just ask people if they would or wouldn’t eat GM foods – and that would be a fair indicator of what you wanted to know. Unfortunately that doesn’t work so well any more.
The reasons, which have emerged from some in-depth polling from Biotechnology Australia’s latest tracking research study, are that people are becoming more sophisticated in their attitudes and make decisions based on quite complex value chains. The study sought to reach beneath the statistics and determine what drove consumer’s attitudes.
So while roughly 50 per cent of the population in Australia will eat GM foods, and roughly 50 per cent won’t – these figures will move depending on:
- what benefits are there from eating the food,
- what is the final food type – a health food or snack food,
- how distant is the gene transfer involved,
- who is regulating it for safety,
- was it developed by a company or a public research organisation,
- and, to a lesser extent, the price of the product.
Therefore, if you ask somebody these days if they would or wouldn’t eat GM foods, they’re more likely to say, ‘Well that depends. Are we talking about a cake or a tomato? What genes has it had transferred? And who developed it?’
However, while attitudes have become a little more complex, there is still a low level of understanding of GM food in Australia, with a quarter of survey respondents (25.8%) incorrectly believing that most of Australia’s fresh produce is genetically modified. Also, nearly half (46.3%) believed that most processed foods in Australian supermarkets are genetically modified.
There was, however, great variation in the spread of attitudes, ranging from disgust to indifference and with many opinions in the middle that cannot simply be broken down into for or against. Most participants did express concern about the potential health risks of consuming genetically modified foods and some were sceptical whether the exact nature of the effect of these foods on human health would ever be known.
However the correlation between attitudes and behaviour showed a weaker link than has often been presumed, and the type of foods being considered became crucial as the key indicator. Some respondents stated that they would stop purchasing a product if they found out that it was genetically modified, but most said they would be reluctant to change their buying habits. Some even expressed no intention to cease buying familiar items if they learnt that they were genetically modified, given that they had not noticed any ill-effects to date.
During the focus group sections of the study participants were shown baked goods (e.g. lamingtons and cakes) which contained ingredients (e.g. soy emulsifiers, canola oil) produced from crops that are among the more commonly genetically modified. Most participants said they would buy and eat the baked goods, even if they contained GM ingredients, as they did not expect the product to be good for them in the first place.
Regarding labelling of GM foods, many people were generally confident that genetically modified foods would have strict labelling requirements. However, none of the focus group respondents in the study could recall having ever seen a label on food packaging indicating the food was GM. Most participants felt that the labelling should be obvious, and not simply in the fine print. In this regard, they made reference to common flavours and preservatives, which were only identified by their codes, which made them difficult to identify.
The study also looked at awareness of, and trust in, regulators. Food Standards Australia New Zealand rated very highly, with awareness levels of 61.3% (prompted) and trust levels of 69.9% amongst that group.
The study, which is the fourth in a series, was conducted by Eureka Strategic Research, for Biotechnology Australia, and entailed a telephone interview with 1067 people over the age of 18, supported by 13 focus groups.
Further details can be obtained by contacting Craig Cormick, Manager of Public Awareness, Biotechnology Australia on +61 02 6213-6805 or from: www.biotechnology.gov.au/reports
+++++++++
Survey shows that imported horticulture is safe
Results of a recent AQIS survey assessing the safety of imported horticulture products has confirmed that these horticulture products remain a low risk.
The survey provided a “snapshot” of the status of imported horticultural products, such as baby corn, garlic, asparagus, semi-dried tomatoes and mushrooms, and tested for the presence of any associated pesticide residues or microbiological contamination.
A total of 97 samples were tested.
Pesticide residues were found in only two samples – semi dried tomatoes and garlic but neither presented a public health risk as residue levels were well below the maximum residue levels for these products.
The microbiological contamination results showed no detections of Salmonellabacteria but 14 of the 97 samples revealed traces of E.coli where 10 of these samples were from the same consignment from one importer.
The survey shows that imported horticultural products are safe. Comparing this result with data from state government surveys of domestic produce indicates that imported produce has microbiological and chemical levels comparable to Australian produce.
The survey results were analysed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), which advised that the results confirm that horticultural products remain a low food safety risk.
The full report can be found at www.aqis.gov.au/foodimport .
+++++++++
Recent research work on Nutrition, Health and Related Claims
FSANZ has recently completed three research projects to assist us in developing a new standard for nutrition, health and related claims and to provide baseline data on the use of nutrition, health and related claims prior to the new standard being put in place. FSANZ will use these results in the future after the standard is implemented to help us evaluate how well it is working.
What do consumers think about nutrition and health claims on food products?
In the first two projects FSANZ commissioned TNS Social Research to work with consumers to find out about their perceptions of foods that carry nutrition and health claims and the benefits that might be provided by consuming these foods on a regular basis. The research also looked at how nutrition and health claims on foods might influence a consumer’s decision to purchase specific food products. First we did some qualitative research to find out more about the range of consumer views on these issues. We used this information to develop questions for the second project, a quantitative survey of consumers.
The overall aim of the research was to:
- provide baseline data on consumer views and behaviour towards foods carrying nutrition and health claims prior to the development of a standard to regulate such claims;
- inform an analysis of the benefits and costs of moving away from the status quo (where claims, other than content claims and nutrition function claims, are not permitted) to a system where claims in relation to nutrition and health, if substantiated, are permitted; and
- inform risk management decisions in relation to drafting and implementing regulatory measures as appropriate.
Qualitative research
For the first stage of the research we used qualitative methods to determine the range of attitudes and beliefs that consumers have about nutrition and health claims on foods. Sixty nine in-depth interviews were completed in four major cities in New Zealand and Australia using mock ups of food products with and without various types of claims. A demographically representative sample of adults aged 18 years and over took part, with each person selected based on their responsibility for food purchase and varying levels of self reported ‘health consciousness’. The fieldwork was completed at the end of October 2004.
Preliminary findings indicated considerable variability in responses for particular questions however, there were a number of common findings across the study that underpinned participants’ responses and behaviours:
- where consumers had existing knowledge about specific nutrients this led to a better understanding of the potential health benefits of consuming foods with a claims about the amount of nutrient in the food (content claim);
- participants were more cautious about new terms used in the claims than old (known and accepted) ones;
- claims with higher perceived risk (or possibly less personal knowledge of) were taken more seriously than those with lower perceived risk;
- claims about a longer term health risk, such as heart disease, was seen to be lower risk and less relevant than claims about immediate or short-term health risk, such as cholesterol lowering;
- fat was perceived differently to other nutrients, and dominated consumer thinking. Fat intake was equated with high health risk and made participants concerned about or wanting to check the fat content of the product;
- the most common approach to seeking further information was to check the nutrition information panel, the ingredients list or to look for special statement on the back of the product. All participants expected to find further information on the back of the product.
The research also explored consumers’ views on the length of claims and the use of message devices, which are statements that provide additional information to the claim and include disclaimers, disclosures and advisory statements. Generally consumers preferred short simple messages for the claim itself. For the message device to be effective there needed to be an obvious link with the claim, the research findings indicating that their position on the label in relation to the claim made a difference to consumers’ understanding of the intent of the message.
Different types of nutrition and health claims were discussed in the interviews, including nutrition content claims, nutrition function claims and other general level claims, high level claims referencing a serious disease, endorsements (such as the National Heart Foundation tick), implied claims (such as pictures/graphics) and cause related marketing claims (donation from the purchase of the product going towards a worthy organisation). Each consumer was asked to rank sets of claims according to perceived health benefits and influence on intent to purchase.
- Click here for the full report and summary of findings.
Quantitative research
In the second project, we designed an email survey that was completed by 1044 consumers from a representative sample of the Australia and New Zealand populations in March 2005. The survey further explored consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards products with different types of nutrition and heath claims. People taking part in the survey were presented with several sets of photos of label mock ups of a product with different claims and asked a series of questions about the benefits they thought regular consumption of each version of the product would give, who might benefit, how the claim might influence their intent to purchase the product and, in some cases, how useful a disclosure statement about nutrients other than the claimed nutrient was.
The results proved to be interesting, again reflecting the fact that there is a diverse range of beliefs and assumptions about the health and nutritional value of foods, based on consumers’ individual knowledge and life experience. Decisions about foods with claims are obviously very complex and in some cases the findings were not straightforward. There was some evidence that consumers also look at other information on the food label to ‘verify’ any claims made, for example, the nutrition information panel, endorsements and list of ingredients.
Consumers were more aware of general level claims than high level claims, the most frequently seen claim being a function claims (90% consumers aware) and a nutrient content claim (84% aware). However, even though some of the high level claims presented in the survey are not currently permitted (eg whole of diet risk reduction claims, biomarker maintenance claim) consumers did report being aware of and using these types of claims. This may have been due to confusion about the type of claim referred to in the question, material seen elsewhere but not actually on food labels or the use of products carrying an illegal claim.
The results suggest that there was a trend for high level claims that reference a serious disease to communicate greater health benefits compared to the same product with a general level claim. However, there was little difference in intent to purchase the product between products with these two types of claims. however, there was a difference in intent to purchase reported between each product with a claim and the product with no claim.
As in the qualitative research, the influence of endorsements, graphics (implied claims) and cause related marketing claims on intent to purchase and on perceived benefit was also explored in the email survey. These and more results are available in the full report .
On reading the report, it must be remembered that one of the limitations of this type of study is that the research findings may be dependent on the food used in the exercise or the type of claim selected. For example, we used the National Heart Foundation Tick as the endorsement on a food label. The results obtained on consumers’ views of endorsement claims may be due to the fact that the tick is so well known and may not be replicated for other, less well known, endorsements.
What claims are found on food labels?
To assess the changes to the extent and type of claims on food labels the new standard on nutrition, health and related claims might bring we need to know what claims are being used now. FSANZ commissioned AgriQuality to assess claims on labels we had collected in 2003 as part of our ongoing label monitoring survey.
The claims were assessed in two ways: against the claims classification in the proposed Standard for Nutrition, Health and Related Claims and against current labelling provisions (including Standard 1.2.8, Standard 1.3.2, standards for special foods, the transitional health standard, fair trading standards). Australian labels were also assessed against the Code of Practice on Nutrition Claims in Food Labels and Advertising (CoPoNC) provisions and New Zealand labels against the New Zealand Dietary Supplements Regulations (NZDSR).
A total of 1262 products taken from 14 food categories were assessed. For the assessment against the proposed framework for claims, 43% (542 products) carried nutrition or health claims (42% nutrition claims, 11% health claims, that is, some had both types).
Of 542 products with claims, 75% (405) had nutrition claims only, 1% (6 products) health claims only and 24% (131 products) had both nutrition and health claims.
When the products were assessed against current labelling provisions, the level of consistency was relatively high. Of 542 products with claims, 73 products (84 claims) were inconsistent with standards, CoPoNC or the NZDSR.
There were some differences across food categories, with foods intended for special dietary purposes carrying the largest proportion of claims (26 out of 27 labels had a nutrition claim), followed by edible oils (21 out of 30 labels) and dairy products (77 out of 112 labels). Sugar, confectionery and meat products had the lowest proportion of products with claims.
- Click here for the full report .
It is worth noting that the baseline data presented in this report may not reflect the current market place as the products were purchased in 2003. FSANZ has commissioned a label monitoring survey for 2005 and 2006. The 2005 labels will be assessed for key labelling elements such as date marking, nutrition information