The emergence of international food safety standards and guidelines: understanding the current landscape through a historical approach

Following the Second World War, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) teamed up to construct an International Codex Alimentarius (or 'food code') which emerged in 1963. The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) was charged with the task of developing microbial hygiene standards, although it found itself embroiled in debate with the WHO over the nature these standards should take. The WHO was increasingly relying upon the input of biometricians and especially the International Commission on Microbial Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) which had developed statistical sampling plans for determining the microbial counts in the final end products. The CCFH, however, was initially more focused on a qualitative approach which looked at the entire food production system and developed codes of practice as well as more descriptive end-product specifications which the WHO argued were 'not scientifically correct'. Drawing upon historical archival material (correspondence and reports) from the WHO and FAO, this article examines this debate over microbial hygiene standards and suggests that there are many lessons from history which could shed light upon current debates and efforts in international food safety management systems and approaches

Super Unleaded Malbec? A Case Study in Flawed International Standard Setting at the Codex Alimentarius

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) provides rules on the adoption and enforcement of SPS measures. It also presumes that food safety regulations adopted by WTO Members that conform to relevant international standards are consistent with the SPS Agreement. The relevant international standard setting body for food safety is the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which conducts most of its food safety risk management work through subsidiary bodies such as the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF). CCCF establishes maximum limits for food contaminants and codes of practice for reducing food contamination. These subsidiary bodies in turn delegate risk management work to electronic working groups (EWG) that are comprised of relevant food safety authorities of Codex member states

Impact of WTO on CODEX Alimentarius and Its Implications for World Trade

International Relations/Trade,

SETTING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL TRADE

International Relations/Trade,

The European Regulatory Framework and its implementation in influencing organic inspection and certification systems in the EU

The report presents a review of the most important European and international legislation that set the framework for organic certification, of reports prepared by international agencies working with organic standard setting and certification, and of relevant scientific literature. It discusses problems, future challenges of the organic control systems in Europe leading to suggestions for improvement. Food quality assurance is of key importance for the future development of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU. A large number of mandatory and voluntary assurance and certification schemes exist for agriculture and in the food industry leading to the risk of increased costs for producers and confusion of consumers. Such schemes include the setting of requirements and bodies that undertake control and provide certificates. Requirements can be divided into statutory regulations regarding food safety and good agricultural practice and standards for voluntary attributes. Basic requirements of food safety, animal health and animal welfare are controlled by the Official Food and Feed Control (OFFC) systems, governed by Council Regulation (EC) 882/2004. Third party certification provides credibility to claims related to voluntary standards and is communicated to the consumers through the use of certification marks. The EU has developed a legislative basis for quality claims in relation to geographical indications, traditional specialities and organic farming and considers introducing labelling rules in relation to animal welfare, environmental impact and the origin of raw materials. Organic certification is one of a number of overlapping and competing schemes. The development of organic standards and certification in Europe started with private standards and national rules, leading to Regulation (EEC) 2092/1991. The requirements for competent authorities, control bodies and operators in this regulation regarding the control systems are reviewed. The discussion highlights the low level of knowledge among consumers of the requirements of organic certification, a weak emphasis of the control system on operator responsibility for organic integrity, issues of competition and surveillance of control bodies, a lack of consideration of risk factors in designing the inspection systems and a lack of transparency. A total revision of the European Regulations on organic production began in 2005. One important change introduced by the new Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 for Organic Food and Farming is that the organic control system is placed under the umbrella of Council Regulation (EC) 882/2004 on Official Food and Feed Controls. Regulation (EC) 834/2007 also requires that control bodies have to be accredited according to general requirements for bodies operating product certification systems (ISO Guide 65/EN 45011). From July 2010 packaged organic products will have to carry the new EU logo as well as the compulsory indication of the control body. The report reviews the requirements for competent authorities, control bodies and operators from the various legal sources. The discussion highlights a lack of clarity on the impact of the OFFC regulation on the organic control system including how risk based inspections are to be implemented and the potential for in-consistencies in the enforcement of the regulation. A number of international initiatives concerned with the harmonisation of organic standards and to a lesser extent certification are reviewed, such as the International Task Force on Harmonisation and Equivalence (ITF)1 Two main alternative guarantee systems for organic production have been developed and researched by a number of organisations including IFOAM, ISEAL, FAO and the EU Commission. Smallholder Group Certification based on an Internal Control System (ICS) and Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) could also represent ways to minimize certification costs also for European farmers, in particular for operators that market directly or through very short supply chains. Both systems also illustrate examples of certification systems with a focus on system development and improvement. , the European Organic Certifiers Council (EOOC), the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) and the Anti-Fraud Initiative (AFI). The multilateral initiatives have led to a better understanding of current problems and the scope and limitations for harmonisation. They have also contributed to the sharing of tools and methods and the identification of best practice. Apart from organic farming the European Union has two other food quality schemes: Regulation (EC) 510/2006 on geographical indications and Regulation (EC) 509/2006 on traditional specialities. The report explores the potential for combining these with organic certification, and draws lessons for organic certification based on Italian experience. The final chapter summarises problems and challenges from the previous chapters. Suggestions for improvements of the organic control system focus on two issues: the need for further harmonisation of the surveillance of control bodies and enforcement of the regulation and how operators’ responsibility for further development of organic systems could be supported in the control and certification system

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Corporate Influence, and International Trade: A Perspective on FDA\u27s Global Role

Section 305 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act specifically calls for FDA to develop recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius Commission (“Codex”), an international organization charged with developing food standards, guidelines, codes of practice and “other recommendations to ensure fair practices in food trade and protect[ion of] the health of consumers.” FDA’s International Food Safety Capacity-Building Plan is largely supportive and deferential to Codex, concluding that “the use of Codex standards helps assure a safe global food supply.” To be sure, Codex’s stated mission and policies should create and facilitate adoption of universal standards and best practices to ensure a safe global food supply, supported as it is by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization, specialized UN agencies with well-regarded research capacity. This paper challenges the FDA’s current approach to Codex standards. Using common criticisms of Codex — that it favors rich countries over poor, industry over consumers, and trade over health — it urges FDA to use its new authority to ensure that Codex standards are informed by advances in nutrition science, to bring greater transparency to Codex decision-making, and to integrate its overseas capabilities with its activities at Codex

Technical Capacity, Policymaking and Food Standards: An Overview of Indian Experience

The SPS Agreement in the WTO gives legal validity to the CODEX\ud standards. Since the developed countries have been at the forefront of\ud setting the food standards in the CODEX, the developing countries have\ud been increasingly engaged in the CODEX, and also in the WTO, with an\ud objective to increase their exports of the agricultural and food products.\ud But such objective and desire have often been stymied by the lack of\ud institutions which can sustain the intense technical negotiations at the\ud CODEX. If these participations are not qualitatively satisfactory, the very\ud objective of such participations is not fulfilled. But since most of the\ud developing countries are lacking in such high technical capacity, they are\ud unable to influence or qualitatively shape the negotiations in the CODEX.\ud This also impacts their exports of agricultural and food products.\ud India has been an active member of the WTO. But whether it has been\ud able to influence or respond to the play of events internationally and\ud concomitantly balance it with the domestic imperatives that are embedded\ud in the international legal and technological regimes, institutional capacity\ud constraints and other social issues. This paper examines such issues, and\ud also examines some bilateral trade agreements which demonstrate the\ud mounting pressure on the developing countries to conform to the food\ud standards of the developed countries

FOOD SAFETY ISSUES, PROTECTION AND TRADE (WITH RESPECT TO MEAT PRODUCTS)

This paper was presented at the INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS SYMPOSIUM in Auckland, New Zealand, January 18-19, 2001. The Symposium was sponsored by: the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, the Venture Trust, Massey University, New Zealand, and the Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies, Massey University. Dietary changes, especially in developing countries, are driving a massive increase in demand for livestock products. The objective of this symposium was to examine the consequences of this phenomenon, which some have even called a "revolution." How are dietary patterns changing, and can increased demands for livestock products be satisfied from domestic resources? If so, at what cost? What will be the flow-on impacts, for example, in terms of increased demands for feedgrains and the pressures for change within marketing systems? A supply-side response has been the continued development of large-scale, urban-based industrial livestock production systems that in many cases give rise to environmental concerns. If additional imports seem required, where will they originate and what about food security in the importing regions? How might market access conditions be re-negotiated to make increased imports achievable? Other important issues discussed involved food safety, animal health and welfare and the adoption of biotechnology, and their interactions with the negotiation of reforms to domestic and trade policies. Individual papers from this conference are available on AgEcon Search. If you would like to see the complete agenda and set of papers from this conference, please visit the IATRC Symposium web page at: http://www1.umn.edu/iatrc.intro.htmFood Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, International Relations/Trade,

"The United States Food and Drug Administration: Its role, authority, history, harmonization activities, and cooperation with the European Union."

The purpose of this article is to provide background about the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The article will focus particularly upon the agency's authority, its place in the United States system, and its history as a domestic institution and as a participant in international activities. Finally, the article summarizes principal areas of regulatory cooperation with the European Union in the foods area and outlines future areas of cooperation. The article may be of interest to counterparts in other countries, confronted with such food safety issues - particularly the recent evidence that humans might develop a variant of a fatal neurological disease (Creutzfeld-Jakob disease) as a result of eating beef from cattle afflicted with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)

Do food regulatory systems protect public health?

The purpose of this commentary is to consider the extent to which food regulatory systems protect public health, and how a better job could be done. There are fundamental questions about the role of food regulations in responding to changes in food systems and to food-related public health issues. What is meant by the objective &lsquo;to protect public health and safety&rsquo; in the context of food regulation? Are current systems well balanced between promoting trade and protecting health? What is the role of nutrition in food regulation? Should food regulation be used to promote as well as to protect public health? Should laws and regulations be used to intervene in the formulation and marketing of foods, or should &lsquo;the market&rsquo; merely provide more choices and information for shoppers and consumers to select healthy diets?<br /