Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Summary presentation of day one FAO experts workshop on practical applications on Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for food safety management

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 9 Ad

Summary presentation of day one FAO experts workshop on practical applications on Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for food safety management

Download to read offline

http://tiny.cc/faowgsworkshop
Summary presentation of day one FAO experts workshop on practical applications on Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for food safety management-7-8 December 2015, Rome, Italy.
© FAO: http://www.fao.org

http://tiny.cc/faowgsworkshop
Summary presentation of day one FAO experts workshop on practical applications on Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for food safety management-7-8 December 2015, Rome, Italy.
© FAO: http://www.fao.org

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (18)

Viewers also liked (15)

Advertisement

Similar to Summary presentation of day one FAO experts workshop on practical applications on Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for food safety management (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Summary presentation of day one FAO experts workshop on practical applications on Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for food safety management

  1. 1. Day 1 Summary EXPERT WORKSHOP ON PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF WGS ON FOOD SAFETY
  2. 2. Game changer?  Real-time application is key  Advantage to exchange a common language  Already existing good epi system and real-time surveillance system – extremely useful, but are they essential?  Simple food-testing is available everywhere  Step-by-step approach can be taken with things that exist  Political will to improve food safety – useful (in other words, countries that consider food safety a low priority – a challenge)
  3. 3. Case studies to highlight benefits  Why WGS is better than traditional methods?  Simpler*  More sensitive/precise/specific (inclusion/exclusion of cases in clusters, “matches”)  Faster (minimize the negative impact)  Concrete information/evidence for actions, improved confidence  Handling of WGS data is easier than PFGE*  Performing is easier*  Low cost (if high volume)  Application flexibility  Why WGS is beneficial for developing countries?  Easy to implement*  Helps build confidence of the competent authority at the national level  Global identification of the problem can help local identification/intervention
  4. 4. Possible pitfalls  Realistic descriptions of possible pitfall needs to be in the paper  Essential infrastructure to employ WGS – internet connection/speed  Are there any prerequisite activities to conduct before employing WGS?  Acquiring and analyzing exposure data – limiting factor  Interpretation of the data – bioinformatics capacity development needs  Challenges in traditional methods remain as challenges in WGS (epi, food investigations, sampling, etc)  Obvious technological challenges with new methodologies  Cost (if low volume)  Trust issue – Is your data credible? What will happen to my data?  Fears of global data sharing – trade barriers?  Needs to highlight to educate that earlier intervention is a clear benefit in the long-run, with minimized adverse health impact, reduced economical impact, fewer lawsuits, less impact overall  Who will have responsibility for global-level monitoring and action?  Consideration on different level of development
  5. 5. Data-sharing  Benefit of global data-sharing – for developing countries?  Raw data sharing – useful, but “what if”  Confidentiality issue  Ownership issue – my isolates, my sequenced data  Data submitters + Data mediator(s) – blinded way  Not very simple for WHO to be a “global submitter/mediator – still a need for international hub  Possibility with academia/universities as data mediator(s)  Issues with meta data – what would be “minimum” requirement?  Global vs local  “Draft” data sharing possibility – for real-time actions
  6. 6. WGS implementation challenges  Resources  Perception of high cost of the new technology  Still high cost in developing countries  Parallel with traditional tests – double/triple the costs?  New methodologies  Training and trained personnel needed  Sensitization needs for higher authorities and politicians – why do we need WGS?  Global data-sharing: consequences – uncertain - leads ones to keep data locally
  7. 7. Capacity building  Basic food safety capacity building still very relevant  Health surveillance  Food monitoring  Foodborne illness investigations  Food inspection  Traceability/recall  Risk analysis  Trainings vs providing “good practices” + trainings  Guidance on harmonization
  8. 8. Role of international organizations  “Convening power”  Providing fora to discuss global issues – governance issues, legal issues, confidential issues, IPRs  “Good practice” guidelines for harmonization  Validation of the data? Facilitation of sharing data  Coordination of global cluster investigation?  Collaboration with major relevant initiatives to facilitate synergies  Networks: PulseNet international, ICOPHAI (GenomeTrakr partnership) – one health  Databases (NCBi/ENA/DDJ)  Consortium: GMI, etc
  9. 9. Considerations  Multi-agency collaboration – essential (food and health)  Multi-sectoral collaboration – extremely useful (public, private, academia, etc)  With appropriate governmental policies, WGS can help to limit the impact of outbreaks through faster and more accurately link outbreaks with food source and help  increasing food safety and public health,  minimizing the impact of contaminated food on trade and  minimizing food waste

×