Food Safety - History & Economic Impact

897 views

Published on

This presentation outlines the history of food safety and tries to illustrate its enormous economic impact with a few examples.

Published in: Food, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
897
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Food Safety - History & Economic Impact

  1. 1. Food Safety History Definition Economy by Alois Fellinger FoodSAFE’14 May 7,2014
  2. 2. Lets look back into History
  3. 3. … not quite that far back! but almost …
  4. 4. God gave man a commandement, saying „You may definitively eat from every tree in the garden. But from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, do not eat, for on the day you eat from it, you will definitely die.“ Genesis 2:16-17
  5. 5. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. Leviticus 11:3-8
  6. 6. Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Qurʼan, Surah 5 (al-Maʼidah ), ayah 3
  7. 7. Hippocrates (460 377 BC) Hippocrates recognized The essential Relationship between Food and health, pointing out that differences of diseases depend on nutriment
  8. 8. Pliny the Elder (23 – 79) “So many poisons are employed to force wine to suit our taste – and we are surprised that it is not wholesome!” Natural History
  9. 9. ”What is food to one, is to others bitter poison.” (“quod aliis cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum” Book IV, line 637) Titus Lucretius Carus (99-55 B.C.)
  10. 10. STELLIONATUS "And, where anyone has substituted some article for another; or has put aside goods which he was obliged to deliver, or has spoiled them, he is also liable for this offense" Roman Civil Law
  11. 11. A second, but much inferior, species of offence against public health is the selling of unwholesome provisions. Magna Carta xiii. No. III.: PROCEEDINGS ON AN ACTION OF DEBT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; REMOVED INTO THE KING’S BENCH BY WRIT OF ERROR. - Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 2 [1753]
  12. 12. And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Numbers 21:6
  13. 13. The Romans used Lead-lined Vessels for cooking and leaden pipes for water. „SAPA“ was a syrup like grape concentrate, boiled in lead-lined vessels to enhance color, flavor and shelf life of wine.
  14. 14. • First Speculated in 1694 by Dr. Eberhard Gockel published • Connection to lead in 1767 by SIR George BAKER USING litharge to sweeten wine Hüttenkatz Colic of Devonshire Colic of Poitou
  15. 15. St. Anthonys Fire An intensely painful burning sensation in the limbs and extremities caused by ergotamines from the fungus Claviceps purpurea that can contaminate rye and wheat.
  16. 16. Molds Mold poisoning played a critical role in repressing population growth in Europe between the 16th and 19th century
  17. 17. Parasites Mold poisoning played a critical role in repressing population growth in Europe between the 16th and 19th century Ascaris eggs
  18. 18. Friedrich Accum, 1820
  19. 19. Mercury Methylmercury in fish, locally caught, was causing „Minamata disease“ – destroying nerve cells and causing neurological problems
  20. 20. DDT DDT bioaccumulates in fatty tissue of animals and eventually is taken up by humans. An FDA survey in 2005 still found DDT in all human bolod samples tested, although DDT was practically banned in the 1970‘s
  21. 21. Dioxin Melamine Antibiotics Pesticides Horsemeat BSE Hormones Listeria Acrylamide PCB‘s
  22. 22. Public Opinion
  23. 23. Special Eurobarometer 354 – Food-related risks. 2010
  24. 24. Biannual Public Attitudes Tracker, Wave 7, November 2013 Food Standards Agency, Social Science Research Unit
  25. 25. Center for Food Integrity, Consumer Trust in the Food System, 2010
  26. 26. Center for Food Integrity, Consumer Trust in the Food System, 2010 “I am confident in the safety of the food I eat.”
  27. 27. Center for Food Integrity, Consumer Trust in the Food System, 2010 “I am as confident in the safety of the food I eat as I was a year ago.”
  28. 28. Center for Food Integrity, Consumer Trust in the Food System, 2010 “Today’s food supply is safer than it was when I was growing up.”
  29. 29. Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007 - A benchmark survey of consumers’ attitudes to food issues. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 2008.
  30. 30. Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007 - A benchmark survey of consumers’ attitudes to food issues. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 2008.
  31. 31. About 1/3 of the people are very concerned about the safety of food! very concerned somewhat concerned
  32. 32. Definitions
  33. 33. Food Safety Food safety is a scientific discipline describing handling, preparation, and storage of food in ways that prevent foodborne illness.
  34. 34. The five keys to safer food • Keep clean • Separate raw and cooked • Cook thoroughly • Keep food at safe temperatures • Use safe water and raw materials
  35. 35. Food security is reached when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life. Food Security
  36. 36. Food security is build on three pillars • Food availability - sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis. • Food access - having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. • Food use - appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.
  37. 37. Economy
  38. 38. • Handling, preparation, and storage • Legislation and control • Healthcare costs • Trade impact • … What to consider?
  39. 39. John M. Mantle: Benefits and costs of food safety regulation. Food Policy, 24, 605-623. 1999 Benefit calculation B = e · p · n(c · s · fs + v · d · fd) B Benefit (measured in US$) e effectivness of regulations for preventing incidents p percentage of food-borne illness associated with food n size of the population c cost of illness (in US$) v value of a statistical life s, d observed frequencies of illness and death in population fs, fd expansion factors for illness and death translating observed data into estimated rates for the population
  40. 40. Production costs with quality control c(y,q,w,k,a,b,g) = vc(y,q,w,k,a) + qc(q,w,k,b) + fc(k, g) c total costs vc variable costs, joint in conventional production inputs and some quality control inputs) qc variable costs, non-joint in conventional inputs and certain quality control inputs, fc conventional fixed cost component independent of both output and quality. a,b,g parameters of the respective components of the cost function John M. Mantle: Benefits and costs of food safety regulation. Food Policy, 24, 605-623. 1999
  41. 41. C. Botulinum $18,333,349 Campylobacter jejuni $169,918,469 Ciguatera $9,513,321 Cryptosporidium $95,464,676 Cyclospora $20,889,089 E. coli non-0157 STEC $65,515,401 E. Coli O157:H7 $153,367,257 E. coli, Enterotoxigenic $132,011 Hepatitis A $54,128,295 Listeria monocytogenes $1,622,899,591 Mycobacterium bovis $26,244,795 Norovirus $6,656,158 Other chemical $13,657 Other fungal $1,329 Other parasitic $772 Plant toxin $343 Salmonella $1,973,633,824 Scombroid $4,414,540 Seafood poison $24,982 Shigella sonnei $22,770,087 Vibrio cholerae $23,172 Vibrio parahaemolyticus $18,939,883 Unidentified $1,081,016,934 TOTAL $5,343,901,935 Estimated Dollar Burden Attributable to All FDA-regulated Foods Agent U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Analysis of Economic Impacts – Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, 2013
  42. 42. „Let me give one example: the European regulation on aflatoxins. A World Bank study has calculated that this regulation costs Africa 670 million dollars each year in exports of cereals, dried fruit and nuts. And what does it achieve? It may possibly save the life of one citizen of the European Union every two years.“ Kofi Annan - Statement on the Challenge of Eradicating Poverty for Sustainable Development; Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, May 14, 2001
  43. 43. Relative to Codex* Relative to the pre-EU harmonization (1998 trade)** Loss in the value of African Food exports US$ 670 000 000 US$ 340 000 000 Number of cancer death saved 2.3 persons 0.9 persons The value of African food exports and human health risk under the new EU harmonized standard relative to those under the alternative regulatory scenarios * 9ppb aflatoxin B1, calculated from Codex 15ppb aflatoxin total standard ** 4.8ppb aflatoxin B1 (average of 1998 individual EU countries aflatoxin regulations) Otsuki T., Wilson J.S. and Sewadeh M. “Saving two in a billion: quantifying the trade effect of European food safety standards on African exports” Food Policy 26, 495-514. 2001
  44. 44. Otsuki T., Wilson J.S. and Sewadeh M. “Saving two in a billion: quantifying the trade effect of European food safety standards on African exports” Food Policy 26, 495-514. 2001 Trade flow of cereals and nuts 2 groups of countries 15 importing countries Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Spain, UK, USA 31 exporting countries Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Romania, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, USA, Vietnam, Zimbabwe One possible Scenario All importers follow a 2ppb afaltoxin limit vs. only EU at 2ppb, other importers at status-quo Loss of 46,1% in trade (US$ 10,9 billion) biggest loss: Argentina (US$ 2,6 billion, -67,4%), no country gains
  45. 45. Sector Impact of aflatoxin considered Parameter used in social cost estimation Maize only Grain sector Product spoilage effects Change in wastage rates and postharvest costs 70.9 Households Human health effects The cost of premature death due to aflatoxin-related primary liver cancer 112.7 The cost of disability due to aflatoxin-related primary liver cancer 63.8 Poultry Increased mortality rates and reduced feed to weight conversion Reduction in the unit cost of production when the aflatoxin content of feed is reduced 28.9 Hen eggs Increased mortality rates and reduced feed to weight conversion Reduction in the unit cost of production when the aflatoxin content of feed is reduced 6.6 Pig meat Increased mortality rates and reduced feed to weight conversion Reduction in the unit cost of production when the aflatoxin content of feed is reduced 36.2 Total 319.1 Estimate of the 1991 Annual Social Costs of Aflatoxins in Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand (million $A; 1$A @ 1.5 EUR) ) For peanuts the costs were a total of 158 million $A. The estimate does not include the costs from loss of foreign markets Godfrey Lubulwa and Jeff Davis; Inclusion of environmental and human health impacts in agricultural research evaluations: Review and recent evaluations. In: ICRISAT Workshop, Hyderabad, India, 1994
  46. 46. Conclusion • Food Safety is a scientific discipline and does not cost, per se, anything • Food Safety consequences (e.g. legal limits) can result in enormous investment or losses • Economic impact goes way beyond direct costs
  47. 47. Enjoy your Safe Food!

×