Food Safety Performance

Food Safety Performance Introduction The GeoRisQ Food Safety Performance Monitor has been developed within the context of the report Food Safety in Europe: From Farm to Fork and Further. This report is part of the Strategy & Change project Grand Challenges, which aims to identify the most pressing future challenges for Europe, and looks at how research and development can help us to better cope with these challenges. 1 Food in the European Union (hereinafter: EU) has never been safer. We have never had such advanced systems protecting us against food safety risks. The EU has some of the lowest rates of known food-borne illnesses in the world. Despite this, biological, chemical, allergenic and physical hazards are still present. Though cases hitting headlines are uncommon, they often involve dramatic symptoms and deaths and have the power to induce public outcry. Strong in our collective memory are the crises of BSE ( mad cow disease ) in the 1990s, the 2011 outbreak of Escherichia coli O104:H4 which killed fifty people, and numerous high-profile withdrawals of food from supermarket shelves after they were found to contain dangerous substances. 2 Though these cases are sporadic, ensuring food safety is a persistent, sustained challenge. It involves a number of factors, including regulation, risk management and exposure to risks. Some EU Member States meet this challenge with considerably more success than others. In the HCSS report Food Safety in Europe: From Farm to Fork and Further we explore in full the field of food safety in the EU and identify ways in which research can address the issue now and in the future. Within the context of this larger study, we have created a Food Safety Performance Monitor to assess the performance of EU countries in effectively preventing food-borne illness along three categories: outcomes, measures taken and vulnerabilities. In these three categories, we look at four key indicators: outbreaks of food-borne disease, certifications of good practices in the food industry, notifications of measures taken reported to Europe s Rapid Alert System, and the amount of food imported from outside the EU. We collected country-level data for these four indicators and created a ranking for each. The combination of these four indicators by score (with 0 as the lowest and 1 as the highest) produces an average which allows us to estimate the performance of Member States in tackling food safety risks. 1 Grand Challenges includes three other Grand Challenges next to Food Safety, namely: Climate Change, Aging and Health. For each of these other Grand Challenges, three GeoRisQ Monitors have been or will be published in the coming months. 2 World Health Organisation, Outbreaks of E. Coli O104:H4 Infection: Update 30, 22 2011, http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/emergencies/international-healthregulations/news/news/2011/07/outbreaks-of-e.-coli-o104h4-infection-update-30. 1

Below we provide descriptions of the indicators as well as the rationale for their inclusion. Some readers may wish to advance directly to the Analysis section. A more in-depth discussion of the indicators is available in the Food Safety GeoRisQ Methodology Document. 3 Figure 1 summarizes our indicators. Food Safety Performance Indicator Outcomes Outbreaks of Food-Borne Illness Performance Measures Certifications of Good Practice RASFF Notifications Vulnerability Extra-EU Food Imports Figure 1 Summary of Indicators Of our individual indicators, the first measures outcomes through the number of outbreaks of food-borne illnesses each Member State reported in the year 2010. 4 These are defined as two or more people getting the same illness from the same source of food. 5 This is measured relative to the each country s population. A second indicator looks at measures taken in the form of good practices within the food industry in each state. For this we use the British Retail Consortium s food safety certification, a comprehensive food safety 3 For more information on the method and the data selection process, we refer to the Methodology Document which can be retrieved by returning to the main page and clicking the Download More Info button. 4 European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2010, European Food Safety Authority Journal 10, no. 3 (11 2012): 2597. 5 An incidence, observed under given circumstances, of two or more human cases of the same disease and/or infection, or a situation in which the observed number of human cases exceeds the expected number and where the cases are linked, or are probably linked, to the same food source. Ibid. 2

certification system widely established in Europe and internationally. 6 Where the BRC certification is awarded, it shows that an establishment has passed a rigorous audit covering a full spectrum of practices known to mitigate food safety risks. A successful audit suggests the existence of sound risk-management practices. It can also indicate a stringent business climate within the country as firms may demand certification before doing business with one another. In either case, a lack of certifications indicates a greater chance of risks going unheeded. We thus look at each state in terms of the number of BRC certifications awarded to its food firms. This indicator takes into account the relative size of countries food sectors in terms of the number of people employed: states whose food establishments hold the fewest certifications per thousand employees will be deemed to be at greater risk of poor practices leading to unsafe food. 7 Third, we consider measures taken in terms of a state s pro-activeness in taking measures to mitigate food safety risks and reporting such measures to the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). States registering lower numbers of notifications are considered to practice less concerted risk management. Fourth, we look at states exposure to food from outside the EU. We do this in terms of the value of food imported into the country from outside the EU, relative to the population size. Since food safety is generally better regulated and better monitored in the EU than elsewhere, this indicator gives an idea of the amount of food consumed in each country which may be riskier than that which is produced domestically. Analysis While encouraging our readers to explore the data of the GeoRisQ Monitor Food Safety Performance interactively on the GeoRisQ Monitor site, we also present here a brief accompanying report that offers an overview of some interesting findings. The first section gathers a number of general observations regarding European countries exposure to our selection of indicators. The subsequent sections explore each individual indicator. 6 Nicolas Canivet, Food Safety Certification (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006), ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/ag067e/ag067e00.pdf. 7 However it is worth noting that the BRC certification is not the only such scheme in existence. In Germany and France, for example, a very similar certification is used, but data for this are not publicly available. This results in a weaker apparent performance in those countries. For further discussion, please see our Methodology Document. 3

Composite Score Figure 2 GeoRisQ Monitor: Member State Performance in Mitigating Food Safety Risks (Score) Our Monitor combines the four indicators and shows considerably better food safety performance among states with longer-standing membership to the EU when compared to those who joined in 2004 and 2007. With scores close to 1, Spain, Italy and Ireland perform particularly well. Denmark s score is considerably lower than those of its neighbors, owing to a large amount of food imports from outside the EU (see part 0: Imports). This is also a factor for the Netherlands, though high numbers of BRC certifications there compensate somewhat. Scoring less well are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia and Slovakia. These are all relatively new members of the EU, which may mean that their food safety performance is not yet up to the same standard as the rest of the Union. However another factor may be largely responsible and therefore explain the lower scores: institutional adaptation. On the indicators looking at measures taken, it may take some time for newer members of the EU to adapt to food-safety measures such as certifications and notifications and start making full use of them. 4

Outbreaks Figure 3 Number of Outbreaks of Food-Borne Illness, Reporting Rate per 100 000 Population in 2010 (Performance Score) This map shows performance in terms of outcomes: a higher score reflects a low incidence of food-borne illnesses. There is a somewhat polarized situation, with several good performers counting close to 1 for the fewest outbreaks per 100 000 population. On the other hand, the lightest colors are largely in areas which confirm the overall trend of better scores among older EU members. An exception here is Austria, with a lower performance score than its neighbors, though still higher than others such as Slovakia or Lithuania. Malta (not shown) had the highest rate of outbreaks and therefore scored 0. At the other end are Romania and the Czech Republic, who perform considerably better than countries nearby. A possible explanation for these apparent anomalies is the fact that high reporting figures may coincide with a vigilant system for monitoring food safety. For example, it is thought that France s careful monitoring produces a much higher outbreak reporting figure than other countries. 8 The opposite is also true. As a result, high reporting figures may show high incidence of outbreaks, but could also imply a lower level of risk as authorities take a proactive role. Meanwhile a lower score indicates a low number of reported outbreaks, but this could be a result of oversights rather than good performance. We compensate for this with the indicator on notifications to the RASFF, in which Austria is rewarded for its vigilance and Romania loses points (see part 0: Notifications, and our methodology report). Some of the more surprising scores here could also be explained by the differing interpretations of outbreaks among Member States: for example, some included outbreaks isolated to single households while others did not. Latvia s score was exceptionally anomalous for this reason, and was therefore excluded. 8 European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2010. 5

Certifications Figure 4 BRC Certifications per Food Industry (Performance Score) This map ranks countries according to measures taken: the proportion of firms certified for their safe food practices by the BRC. Since the BRC is a British agency, it comes perhaps as little surprise that their certification is firmly established in the UK and the concentration of certified food establishments puts the country among the best performers, with a high score of 0.73. Also displaying a high degree of conscientiousness with scores of 1 and close to 1 are the Netherlands and Ireland. The country whose food industry holds the lowest number of certifications relative to its size is Romania s, placing the country as the lowest performer on the map. The fact that it is closely followed by France and Germany is, however, misleading. While these countries (and others) do have food firms successfully audited by the BRC, another standard is dominant there the International Featured Standard 9 which also promotes food safety in a very similar way, but a lack of publicly available data made it impossible to take this into account. 10 9 Canivet, Food Safety Certification. 10 For more details, see our Methodology Document. 6

Notifications Figure 5 RASFF Follow-up Notifications (Performance Score) This map is a ranking of a pro-active approach toward food safety, evidenced by measures taken and reported to the RASFF. In dark on this map are the countries responsible for the most measures taken and reported to the RASFF. There is a distinct shortfall among more recent members of the EU. This may be because their institutions have not yet adapted to making full use of the notifications system. In stark contrast to their neighbors, Portugal and the Netherlands have not registered a high number of notifications. Performing among the best are Spain, Austria, Germany and Italy in that order. There is a negative correlation (-0.2) between number of measures taken and number of outbreaks. This suggests that states with a pro-active approach to food safety benefit from fewer outbreaks. This inverse relationship might be stronger if we could take into account that states under-notifying the RASFF may also be under-reporting their outbreak data. 7

Imports Figure 6 Food Imports from Outside the EU (Performance Score) This indicator looks at a state s vulnerability to contaminated food based on the knowledge that EU regulations are generally stricter than those elsewhere. We therefore award higher performance scores to countries less vulnerable to food from outside the EU. Countries importing large amounts of food from elsewhere should have a higher risk of contaminated food appearing on their plates. The Netherlands, a typical trading nation, clearly leads the pack with the highest number of euros per capita per year, indicating the highest risk. This should be nuanced with the caveat that a good deal of the food imported may be subsequently exported and thus have little effect on Dutch food safety. Denmark also appears strongly reliant on extra-eu food. Newer members of the EU appear at a much lower risk, with far less spent per person on non-eu food. 8

Conclusion This GeoRisQ monitor has rated EU Member States based on their performance in mitigating food safety risks in terms of the outcomes, measures taken, and vulnerability. Three main findings can be gleaned: first, there is a contrast between older and newer Member States, with the older ones outperforming the newer ones. Second, no country performs consistently well or consistently poorly across the four indicators. Hence, differences in overall score are always due to a combination of factors. It can therefore be concluded that every EU Member State can do more to improve its food-safety performance in at least one of the four respects looked at in this report. Third, discrepancies, anomalies and gaps in the data were a recurring issue. From this it follows that Member States should invest more resources in monitoring food safety. In addition, we recommend that the EU assumes a greater role in safeguarding food safety across the Union. In bolstering the food safety performance of Member States, the EU could principally focus on establishing food safety surveillance mechanisms. In so doing it could introduce, inter alia, a more standardized framework for reporting outbreaks of food-borne illness; and establish a publicly available database on the origin of food imported to the EU sorted by country of origin and country of destination. In our report Food Safety in Europe: From Farm to Fork and Further we return to these findings, in addition to exploring three other emerging issues which have the potential to pose an increasing risk to Europe s food safety in the future: antibiotic resistance, allergies and unidentified chemical hazards. Building on the insights yielded by this Food Safety Performance Monitor, in our report we examine in further detail the use and utility of scientific research in meeting the numerous challenges associated with food safety, both at present and in the future. 9