Review Received: 31 October 2013
Revised: 10 March 2014
Accepted article published: 17 March 2014
Published online in Wiley Online Library: 14 April 2014
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.6657
Food safety regulations in Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Dilip Ghosh* Abstract Citizens of Australia and New Zealand recognise that food security is a major global issue. Food security also affects Australia and New Zealand’s status as premier food exporting nations and the health and wellbeing of the Australasian population. Australia is uniquely positioned to help build a resilient food value chain and support programs aimed at addressing existing and emerging food security challenges. The Australian food governance system is fragmented and less transparent, being largely in the hands of government and semi-governmental regulatory authorities. The high level of consumer trust in Australian food governance suggests that this may be habitual and taken for granted, arising from a lack of negative experiences of food safety. In New Zealand the Ministry of Primary Industries regulates food safety issues. To improve trade and food safety, New Zealand and Australia work together through Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and other co-operative agreements. Although the potential risks to the food supply are dynamic and constantly changing, the demand, requirement and supply for providing safe food remains firm. The Australasian food industry will need to continually develop its system that supports the food safety program with the help of scientific investigations that underpin the assurance of what is and is not safe. The incorporation of a comprehensive and validated food safety program is one of the total quality management systems that will ensure that all areas of potential problems are being addressed by industry. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry Keywords: Australia; New Zealand; food security and safety; food safety regulation; FSANZ
INTRODUCTION The integrity of the food supply has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. It is now recognised that food safety and quality concerns are critical in all components of the food supply chain. Better quality products and safer foods are the basic need of consumers, and these higher expectations are resulting in higher requirements being placed upon producers and exporters. Coupled with the rise in consumer activist groups and the possibility of adverse media reporting, increasing pressure has been placed upon policy and law makers to ensure that food safety and quality are maintained to a high standard.
WHAT GLOBALISATION MEANS IN FOOD SAFETY Proponents of globalisation always advocate that a borderless economy will stimulate greater market competition, economic freedom, price reduction, increasing production and availability, access to new technologies and overall higher living standards in both developing and developed countries. The high pace of globalisation has also imposed some tangible challenges on the world economy. Food security, food safety and nutrition are at the top of the list of these challenges. A few countries such as India have recently introduced a Food Security Bill, but critics are very vocal on the lack of nutrition security in this Bill.
∗
GLOBAL SCENARIO
1970
One US report (Healthy People 2010, http://www.healthypeople. gov) said that ‘an increasing amount of the food eaten in most J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
countries originates in other countries’. Diminishing trust in the food supply associated with food scares is reflected by major international researches. The ‘Trust in Food’ survey conducted in seven European countries demonstrated that, while retailers are trusted to maintain the safety of food products, other players, including farmers, food authorities, the food manufacturing industry and the media, are distrusted by food consumers.1 The role of trust in food has become increasingly complex, because consumers cannot possibly be knowledgeable about all of the underlying issues surrounding food choices. Newly adopted food governance strategies in the UK rely on partnership between government and industry. Food safety has become the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), a semi-governmental body with a degree of independence with the goal of protecting public health and restoring confidence in food, while supermarkets have been given greater responsibility for the development and maintenance of standards.2,3 This co-sharing responsibility has resulted in the formation of British Retail Consortium Global Standards, which establish norms for food safety and quality control for supermarkets,4 while consumer involvement is encouraged through the establishment of a Consumer Committee as part of the FSA.5 The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan on 11 March 2011 led to releases of radioactive material into food and the
Corresponding to: Dilip Ghosh, Nutriconnect, Sydney, NSW, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Nutriconnect, Sydney, NSW, Australia
www.soci.org
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Food Safety in Australia-New Zealand
www.soci.org
environment from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, causing one of the most significant food safety issues in recent times.6 With respect to Japan, the assessment of this disaster ‘estimates that the lifetime risk for some cancers may be somewhat elevated above baseline rates in certain age and sex groups that were in the areas most affected. On the basis of these findings, the continued monitoring of food and the environment remains important’.6
AUSTRALIAN SITUATION Australian society is continuously emerging as a knowledge-based one with heightened public interest in science-based issues and a desire for public participation in decision making. The public expects that governments will realise and implement the benefits of new scientific discoveries and new technologies for the purpose of both public protection and economic growth. Global climate change and its impact on Australian business is a prime and topical issue, even impacting on a recent federal election campaign. In Australia, projected impacts include higher temperatures, less rainfall, more frequent and more severe droughts and more extreme storms. Australian governments are working towards an adaptation framework to minimise the impacts on agriculture, water supply, infrastructure, biodiversity and human health. Thus the issues facing governments are increasing in complexity and require decisions that have a profound impact on communities and economies.
HOW AUSTRALIA DIFFERS FROM REST OF THE WORLD
J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
NEW ZEALAND SITUATION The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI, http://www.foodsafety. govt.nz/) is responsible for developing and implementing the legislation that ensures that safe and suitable food is available in New Zealand and for export. Within this legislation, food safety is an important component, and MPI works with industry and consumers to (1) improve the safety and suitability of food, (2) prevent deterioration of human health and the environment and (3) sustain and enhance market access for exports. The Food Act 1981, Animal Products Act (APA) 1999, Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act 1997 and Wine Act 2003 are the four main components of this legislation. MPI approaches food regulation using a risk management framework that includes consultation within New Zealand and through international networks. New Zealand and Australia work together to improve trade and food safety through FSANZ and other co-operative agreements. MPI has developed a new Food Act (http://www.foodsafety.govt. nz/policy-law/reform-nz-food-regulations/food-bill/) that is currently before parliament.
GENESIS OF AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND FOOD SAFETY REGULATION Australia is a federation of six states and two commonwealth territories. Victoria was the first state to introduce laws regulating foods in the mid-19th century. In 1879 the New South Wales government passed the first general legislation, the Adulteration of Food Prevention Act. After formation of the federation, Victoria again, in 1905, was the first state to introduce specific legislation to control the manufacture and sale of foods, followed by other states. Since the elimination of provincial governments in 1876, New Zealand has applied the Sale of Food and Drugs Act throughout the country. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), an advisory national body within the Commonwealth Department of Health, was established in 1936. The main responsibility of this newly formed council was to advise both commonwealth and state governments on matters of public health, including food. Food standards development was transferred from NHMRC to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs in the Attorney-General’s Department in 1989 and subsequently transferred to the National Food Authority (NFA) in 1990, which later became the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA). The current regulatory body, FSANZ, was established by virtue of the revised amended Commonwealth, State and Territory Agreement in 2000. Although FSANZ is a bi-national body, there are a
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
1971
Australia’s relative isolation and its belief in limited food importation7 have also been identified as factors that contribute to trust in the Australian food supply.8 Australians are still sticking to the old adage ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Trust in the Australian food system differs significantly from that in Europe. Perceptions of ‘foreign food’ are more negative concerns about the impact of food safety and quality standards and food scares. Lack of knowledge and subsequently trust in food systems in other countries is one of the major factors in distrust in foreign food. A few recent studies demonstrated that, while politicians and the media are distrusted, farmers enjoy high levels of trust in all food-related institutions (except the media).9 – 11 Australia is considered as one of the safest food suppliers in the world and has not experienced any significant food scares of the magnitude experienced in Europe. However, recent Australian surveys highlight fears surrounding the use of pesticides, food additives and preservatives.12,13 A number of local developments such as food microbiological scares,14 new technological developments8,15 and food irradiation16,17 have challenged consumer confidence in food safety and security. In a consumer attitude survey by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ),12 the data suggest moderate levels of trust in the food regulator and a strong expectation of the role of government in managing food safety. In Europe, reform of the food regulatory system was driven by external factors, including a need to reduce the regulatory burden on the food industry18 and to remain competitive in the export market.19 In Australia/New Zealand, FSANZ was established ‘in response to poor compliance with World Trade Organisation treaties governing food safety and free trade, which require that
Australia ensure protection of public health without restricting trade’.20 The preventive approach to food safety is reflected in legislation that defined ‘what should be achieved rather than how it should be achieved and, as a result, the whole regulatory movement ended up more applying general standards across food groups’. This preventive approach to food safety is moving towards co-regulation of food production methods through greater self-regulation of food hygiene by the food manufacturing industry.19,21 The Australian food governance systems appear to be less streamlined than those of other countries, with possible weak consumer understanding and interaction with relevant bodies and stakeholders.
www.soci.org few significant areas of non-uniformity in the framework of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA). Under TTMRA, products supplemented with vitamins, minerals and other substances (e.g. caffeine) may be legally imported from New Zealand and sold in Australia, though their manufacture in Australia is banned.
AUSTRALIAN FOOD SAFETY REGULATION The cooperative arrangement that exists between Australia, New Zealand and the Australian states and mainland territories enables the development and implementation of uniform food standards with the aim of protecting public health and safety. The standards in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code are legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandard scode.cfm), the Code, which is implemented by food legislation in each Australian state and territory and in New Zealand. Food regulation in Australia, in contrast, continues to be fragmented, occurring over multiple levels of governance.22 After a series of reviews, the current Code is still not as prescriptive as industry wants. The current direction is still trapped within a very basic concept of food. The responsibilities of the federal government include the establishment of standards, importation restrictions and quarantine, and food labelling. State and territory governments establish food legislation and implement and enforce standards, while food inspection is managed by local councils.19,22,23 The Food Safety Standards were developed to provide more effective and nationally uniform food safety legislation for Australia. This is reflected in Chapter 3 (Australia only) of the Food Standards Code. Standards 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.3.1 are mandatory for all food businesses. A guide to these three standards, called Safe Food Australia, is available through FSANZ (http://www.foodstandards. gov.au/foodstandards/foodsafetystandardsaustraliaonly/). Standard 3.1.1 Interpretation and Application This is the introductory standard that explains the terms used in the other standards. It includes the provisions required by food businesses and food handlers to comply with the standards. Standard 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs This standard sets out the requirements for the control of food safety hazards during the production, manufacture and handling of food. This standard is not mandatory for all food businesses. It applies to certain industry sectors that have been identified as being of high risk. Standard 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements This standard sets out specific food handling controls relating to the receipt, storage, processing, display, packaging, transportation, disposal and recall of food.
1972
Standard 3.2.3 Food Premises and Equipment This standard sets out the requirements for food premises, fixtures, fittings, equipment and food transport vehicles.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
D Ghosh
Standard 3.3.1 Food Safety Programs for Food Service to Vulnerable Persons This standard requires food businesses that process food for service to vulnerable people to implement a documented and audited food safety program.
NEW FORMS OF FOOD New forms of food production, processing and distribution have resulted in rising consumer concern over food safety and quality. At present, food safety is receiving an unprecedented amount of attention: problems ranging from ‘mad cow disease’ to milk products contaminated with melamine have alerted the public to the potential hazards of industrially produced foods and globalised food systems. Consumers tend to be concerned about different elements of food risks. This was demonstrated in a government-led, Australia-based consumer study that revealed significant differences in the ratings that respondents gave to the perceived risks associated with chemical, health and spoilage food safety issues. The greatest perceived threats to food safety were cited as pesticides, sprays and residues (identified by 26% of respondents), chemicals (20% of respondents) and problems of spoilage, germs and products being past their sell-by date.24 This study supports previous research showing that various groups within society understand and respond to food safety risks differently.
CONCLUSION When a comparison of food regulation is made between Europe, in particular the UK, and Australia, it is clear that food regulation in both regions is heavily influenced by global economic liberalisation such as international free trade and food safety treaties, which have diminished the extent of control of national governments over internal food safety standards. There are differences between regions, however, primarily related to the degree of consumer involvement and transparency built into the system. Following several food scares, the European governments have implemented food governance mechanisms that promote transparency through greater industry and consumer involvement in food governance; in contrast, the Australian food governance system is fragmented, being largely in the hands of government and semi-governmental regulatory authorities, with less transparency around food governance. The Australasian food industry will need to be constructive and innovative in continually developing its system that supports the food safety program with the help of scientific investigations. The incorporation of a comprehensive and validated food safety program is one of the total quality management systems that will ensure that all areas of potential problems are being addressed by industry. For regulators, the ultimate requirement to ensure compliance through verification will remain, although the framework that necessitates this requirement be addressed may change. The perceptions associated with food safety and quality are important and changing these perceptions is an important endeavour, ‘as the ultimate acceptance of success of a product will be based on the food these consumers purchase, prepare and consume’.25
REFERENCES 1 Poppe C and Kjærnes U, Trust in Food in Europe. National Institute for Consumer Research, Oslo (2003).
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
Food Safety in Australia-New Zealand
www.soci.org
2 Shaw A, ‘It goes against the grain’: public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Publ Understand Sci 11:273–291 (2002). 3 Wales C, Harvey M and Warde A, Recuperating from BSE: the shifting UK institutional basis for trust in food. Appetite 47:187–195 (2006). 4 Havinga T, Private regulation of food safety by supermarkets. Law Pol 28:515–533 (2006). 5 Halkier B, Holm L, Domingues M, Maggaudda P, Nielsen A and Terragni L, Trusting, complex, quality conscious or unprotected? Constructing the food consumer in different European national contexts. J Consum Cult 7:379–402 (2007). 6 WHO, Health Risk Assessment from the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. World Health Organization, Geneva (2013). 7 PMSEIC, Australia and Food Security in a Changing World. The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra (2010). 8 Lupton D, Lay discourses and beliefs related to food risks: an Australian perspective. Sociol Health Illness 27:448–467 (2005). 9 Henderson J, Coveney J and Ward P, Who regulates food? Australians’ perceptions of responsibility for food safety. Aust J Prim Health 16:344–351 (2010). 10 Henderson J, Coveney J, Ward PR and Taylor AW, Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of consumers. ANZ J Publ Health 35:319–324 (2011). 11 Henderson J, Ward P, Coveney J and Meyer S, Trust in the Australian food supply: innocent until proven guilty. Health Risk Soc 14:257–272 (2012). 12 FSANZ, Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007: a Benchmark Survey of Consumers’ Attitudes to Food Issues. Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Canberra (2008). 13 Buchler S, Smith K and Lawrence G, Food risks old and new: demographic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia. J Sociol 46:1–22 (2010).
14 Beers M, Haemolytic–uraemic syndrome: of sausages and legislation. ANZ J Publ Health 20:453–455 (1996). 15 Cox D, Evans G and Lease H, The influence of information and beliefs about technology on the acceptance of novel food technologies: a conjoint study of farmed prawn concepts. Food Qual Prefer 18:813–823 (2007). 16 FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand), Melamine in foods from China. [Online]. (2008). Available: http://www. foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2008/mela mineinfoods from china/ [14 February 2013]. 17 Breidbach A, Bouten K, Kroger K and Ulberth F, Capabilities of laboratories to determine melamine in food – results of an international proficiency test. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:503–510 (2010). 18 Blair W, Food: a Growth Industry. Report of the Food Regulation Review. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (1998). 19 Hobbs J, Fearne A and Spriggs J, Incentive structures for food safety and quality assurance: an international comparison. Food Control 13:77–81 (2002). 20 Martin T, Dean E, Hardy B, Johnson T, Jolly F, Matthews F, et al., A new era for food safety regulation in Australia. Food Control 14:429–438 (2003). 21 Winger R, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Food Control 14:355 (2003). 22 Healy M, Brooke-Taylor S and Liehne P, Reform of food regulation in Australia and New Zealand. Food Control 14:357–365 (2003). 23 Sacks G, Swinburn B and Lawrence M, A systematic policy approach to changing the food system and physical environments to prevent obesity. ANZ Health Pol 5:13 (2008). 24 Buchler S, Smith K and Lawrence G, Food risks, old and new. Demographic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia. J Sociol 46:353–374 (2010). 25 Taylor AW, Coveney J, Ward PR, Dal Grande E, Mamerow L, Henderson J, et al., The Australian Food and Trust Survey: demographic indicators associated with food safety and quality concerns. Food Control 25:476–483 (2012).
1973
J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
Revised: 10 March 2014
Accepted article published: 17 March 2014
Published online in Wiley Online Library: 14 April 2014
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.6657
Food safety regulations in Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Dilip Ghosh* Abstract Citizens of Australia and New Zealand recognise that food security is a major global issue. Food security also affects Australia and New Zealand’s status as premier food exporting nations and the health and wellbeing of the Australasian population. Australia is uniquely positioned to help build a resilient food value chain and support programs aimed at addressing existing and emerging food security challenges. The Australian food governance system is fragmented and less transparent, being largely in the hands of government and semi-governmental regulatory authorities. The high level of consumer trust in Australian food governance suggests that this may be habitual and taken for granted, arising from a lack of negative experiences of food safety. In New Zealand the Ministry of Primary Industries regulates food safety issues. To improve trade and food safety, New Zealand and Australia work together through Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and other co-operative agreements. Although the potential risks to the food supply are dynamic and constantly changing, the demand, requirement and supply for providing safe food remains firm. The Australasian food industry will need to continually develop its system that supports the food safety program with the help of scientific investigations that underpin the assurance of what is and is not safe. The incorporation of a comprehensive and validated food safety program is one of the total quality management systems that will ensure that all areas of potential problems are being addressed by industry. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry Keywords: Australia; New Zealand; food security and safety; food safety regulation; FSANZ
INTRODUCTION The integrity of the food supply has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. It is now recognised that food safety and quality concerns are critical in all components of the food supply chain. Better quality products and safer foods are the basic need of consumers, and these higher expectations are resulting in higher requirements being placed upon producers and exporters. Coupled with the rise in consumer activist groups and the possibility of adverse media reporting, increasing pressure has been placed upon policy and law makers to ensure that food safety and quality are maintained to a high standard.
WHAT GLOBALISATION MEANS IN FOOD SAFETY Proponents of globalisation always advocate that a borderless economy will stimulate greater market competition, economic freedom, price reduction, increasing production and availability, access to new technologies and overall higher living standards in both developing and developed countries. The high pace of globalisation has also imposed some tangible challenges on the world economy. Food security, food safety and nutrition are at the top of the list of these challenges. A few countries such as India have recently introduced a Food Security Bill, but critics are very vocal on the lack of nutrition security in this Bill.
∗
GLOBAL SCENARIO
1970
One US report (Healthy People 2010, http://www.healthypeople. gov) said that ‘an increasing amount of the food eaten in most J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
countries originates in other countries’. Diminishing trust in the food supply associated with food scares is reflected by major international researches. The ‘Trust in Food’ survey conducted in seven European countries demonstrated that, while retailers are trusted to maintain the safety of food products, other players, including farmers, food authorities, the food manufacturing industry and the media, are distrusted by food consumers.1 The role of trust in food has become increasingly complex, because consumers cannot possibly be knowledgeable about all of the underlying issues surrounding food choices. Newly adopted food governance strategies in the UK rely on partnership between government and industry. Food safety has become the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), a semi-governmental body with a degree of independence with the goal of protecting public health and restoring confidence in food, while supermarkets have been given greater responsibility for the development and maintenance of standards.2,3 This co-sharing responsibility has resulted in the formation of British Retail Consortium Global Standards, which establish norms for food safety and quality control for supermarkets,4 while consumer involvement is encouraged through the establishment of a Consumer Committee as part of the FSA.5 The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan on 11 March 2011 led to releases of radioactive material into food and the
Corresponding to: Dilip Ghosh, Nutriconnect, Sydney, NSW, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Nutriconnect, Sydney, NSW, Australia
www.soci.org
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Food Safety in Australia-New Zealand
www.soci.org
environment from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, causing one of the most significant food safety issues in recent times.6 With respect to Japan, the assessment of this disaster ‘estimates that the lifetime risk for some cancers may be somewhat elevated above baseline rates in certain age and sex groups that were in the areas most affected. On the basis of these findings, the continued monitoring of food and the environment remains important’.6
AUSTRALIAN SITUATION Australian society is continuously emerging as a knowledge-based one with heightened public interest in science-based issues and a desire for public participation in decision making. The public expects that governments will realise and implement the benefits of new scientific discoveries and new technologies for the purpose of both public protection and economic growth. Global climate change and its impact on Australian business is a prime and topical issue, even impacting on a recent federal election campaign. In Australia, projected impacts include higher temperatures, less rainfall, more frequent and more severe droughts and more extreme storms. Australian governments are working towards an adaptation framework to minimise the impacts on agriculture, water supply, infrastructure, biodiversity and human health. Thus the issues facing governments are increasing in complexity and require decisions that have a profound impact on communities and economies.
HOW AUSTRALIA DIFFERS FROM REST OF THE WORLD
J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
NEW ZEALAND SITUATION The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI, http://www.foodsafety. govt.nz/) is responsible for developing and implementing the legislation that ensures that safe and suitable food is available in New Zealand and for export. Within this legislation, food safety is an important component, and MPI works with industry and consumers to (1) improve the safety and suitability of food, (2) prevent deterioration of human health and the environment and (3) sustain and enhance market access for exports. The Food Act 1981, Animal Products Act (APA) 1999, Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act 1997 and Wine Act 2003 are the four main components of this legislation. MPI approaches food regulation using a risk management framework that includes consultation within New Zealand and through international networks. New Zealand and Australia work together to improve trade and food safety through FSANZ and other co-operative agreements. MPI has developed a new Food Act (http://www.foodsafety.govt. nz/policy-law/reform-nz-food-regulations/food-bill/) that is currently before parliament.
GENESIS OF AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND FOOD SAFETY REGULATION Australia is a federation of six states and two commonwealth territories. Victoria was the first state to introduce laws regulating foods in the mid-19th century. In 1879 the New South Wales government passed the first general legislation, the Adulteration of Food Prevention Act. After formation of the federation, Victoria again, in 1905, was the first state to introduce specific legislation to control the manufacture and sale of foods, followed by other states. Since the elimination of provincial governments in 1876, New Zealand has applied the Sale of Food and Drugs Act throughout the country. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), an advisory national body within the Commonwealth Department of Health, was established in 1936. The main responsibility of this newly formed council was to advise both commonwealth and state governments on matters of public health, including food. Food standards development was transferred from NHMRC to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs in the Attorney-General’s Department in 1989 and subsequently transferred to the National Food Authority (NFA) in 1990, which later became the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA). The current regulatory body, FSANZ, was established by virtue of the revised amended Commonwealth, State and Territory Agreement in 2000. Although FSANZ is a bi-national body, there are a
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
1971
Australia’s relative isolation and its belief in limited food importation7 have also been identified as factors that contribute to trust in the Australian food supply.8 Australians are still sticking to the old adage ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Trust in the Australian food system differs significantly from that in Europe. Perceptions of ‘foreign food’ are more negative concerns about the impact of food safety and quality standards and food scares. Lack of knowledge and subsequently trust in food systems in other countries is one of the major factors in distrust in foreign food. A few recent studies demonstrated that, while politicians and the media are distrusted, farmers enjoy high levels of trust in all food-related institutions (except the media).9 – 11 Australia is considered as one of the safest food suppliers in the world and has not experienced any significant food scares of the magnitude experienced in Europe. However, recent Australian surveys highlight fears surrounding the use of pesticides, food additives and preservatives.12,13 A number of local developments such as food microbiological scares,14 new technological developments8,15 and food irradiation16,17 have challenged consumer confidence in food safety and security. In a consumer attitude survey by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ),12 the data suggest moderate levels of trust in the food regulator and a strong expectation of the role of government in managing food safety. In Europe, reform of the food regulatory system was driven by external factors, including a need to reduce the regulatory burden on the food industry18 and to remain competitive in the export market.19 In Australia/New Zealand, FSANZ was established ‘in response to poor compliance with World Trade Organisation treaties governing food safety and free trade, which require that
Australia ensure protection of public health without restricting trade’.20 The preventive approach to food safety is reflected in legislation that defined ‘what should be achieved rather than how it should be achieved and, as a result, the whole regulatory movement ended up more applying general standards across food groups’. This preventive approach to food safety is moving towards co-regulation of food production methods through greater self-regulation of food hygiene by the food manufacturing industry.19,21 The Australian food governance systems appear to be less streamlined than those of other countries, with possible weak consumer understanding and interaction with relevant bodies and stakeholders.
www.soci.org few significant areas of non-uniformity in the framework of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA). Under TTMRA, products supplemented with vitamins, minerals and other substances (e.g. caffeine) may be legally imported from New Zealand and sold in Australia, though their manufacture in Australia is banned.
AUSTRALIAN FOOD SAFETY REGULATION The cooperative arrangement that exists between Australia, New Zealand and the Australian states and mainland territories enables the development and implementation of uniform food standards with the aim of protecting public health and safety. The standards in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code are legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandard scode.cfm), the Code, which is implemented by food legislation in each Australian state and territory and in New Zealand. Food regulation in Australia, in contrast, continues to be fragmented, occurring over multiple levels of governance.22 After a series of reviews, the current Code is still not as prescriptive as industry wants. The current direction is still trapped within a very basic concept of food. The responsibilities of the federal government include the establishment of standards, importation restrictions and quarantine, and food labelling. State and territory governments establish food legislation and implement and enforce standards, while food inspection is managed by local councils.19,22,23 The Food Safety Standards were developed to provide more effective and nationally uniform food safety legislation for Australia. This is reflected in Chapter 3 (Australia only) of the Food Standards Code. Standards 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.3.1 are mandatory for all food businesses. A guide to these three standards, called Safe Food Australia, is available through FSANZ (http://www.foodstandards. gov.au/foodstandards/foodsafetystandardsaustraliaonly/). Standard 3.1.1 Interpretation and Application This is the introductory standard that explains the terms used in the other standards. It includes the provisions required by food businesses and food handlers to comply with the standards. Standard 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs This standard sets out the requirements for the control of food safety hazards during the production, manufacture and handling of food. This standard is not mandatory for all food businesses. It applies to certain industry sectors that have been identified as being of high risk. Standard 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements This standard sets out specific food handling controls relating to the receipt, storage, processing, display, packaging, transportation, disposal and recall of food.
1972
Standard 3.2.3 Food Premises and Equipment This standard sets out the requirements for food premises, fixtures, fittings, equipment and food transport vehicles.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
D Ghosh
Standard 3.3.1 Food Safety Programs for Food Service to Vulnerable Persons This standard requires food businesses that process food for service to vulnerable people to implement a documented and audited food safety program.
NEW FORMS OF FOOD New forms of food production, processing and distribution have resulted in rising consumer concern over food safety and quality. At present, food safety is receiving an unprecedented amount of attention: problems ranging from ‘mad cow disease’ to milk products contaminated with melamine have alerted the public to the potential hazards of industrially produced foods and globalised food systems. Consumers tend to be concerned about different elements of food risks. This was demonstrated in a government-led, Australia-based consumer study that revealed significant differences in the ratings that respondents gave to the perceived risks associated with chemical, health and spoilage food safety issues. The greatest perceived threats to food safety were cited as pesticides, sprays and residues (identified by 26% of respondents), chemicals (20% of respondents) and problems of spoilage, germs and products being past their sell-by date.24 This study supports previous research showing that various groups within society understand and respond to food safety risks differently.
CONCLUSION When a comparison of food regulation is made between Europe, in particular the UK, and Australia, it is clear that food regulation in both regions is heavily influenced by global economic liberalisation such as international free trade and food safety treaties, which have diminished the extent of control of national governments over internal food safety standards. There are differences between regions, however, primarily related to the degree of consumer involvement and transparency built into the system. Following several food scares, the European governments have implemented food governance mechanisms that promote transparency through greater industry and consumer involvement in food governance; in contrast, the Australian food governance system is fragmented, being largely in the hands of government and semi-governmental regulatory authorities, with less transparency around food governance. The Australasian food industry will need to be constructive and innovative in continually developing its system that supports the food safety program with the help of scientific investigations. The incorporation of a comprehensive and validated food safety program is one of the total quality management systems that will ensure that all areas of potential problems are being addressed by industry. For regulators, the ultimate requirement to ensure compliance through verification will remain, although the framework that necessitates this requirement be addressed may change. The perceptions associated with food safety and quality are important and changing these perceptions is an important endeavour, ‘as the ultimate acceptance of success of a product will be based on the food these consumers purchase, prepare and consume’.25
REFERENCES 1 Poppe C and Kjærnes U, Trust in Food in Europe. National Institute for Consumer Research, Oslo (2003).
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
Food Safety in Australia-New Zealand
www.soci.org
2 Shaw A, ‘It goes against the grain’: public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Publ Understand Sci 11:273–291 (2002). 3 Wales C, Harvey M and Warde A, Recuperating from BSE: the shifting UK institutional basis for trust in food. Appetite 47:187–195 (2006). 4 Havinga T, Private regulation of food safety by supermarkets. Law Pol 28:515–533 (2006). 5 Halkier B, Holm L, Domingues M, Maggaudda P, Nielsen A and Terragni L, Trusting, complex, quality conscious or unprotected? Constructing the food consumer in different European national contexts. J Consum Cult 7:379–402 (2007). 6 WHO, Health Risk Assessment from the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. World Health Organization, Geneva (2013). 7 PMSEIC, Australia and Food Security in a Changing World. The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra (2010). 8 Lupton D, Lay discourses and beliefs related to food risks: an Australian perspective. Sociol Health Illness 27:448–467 (2005). 9 Henderson J, Coveney J and Ward P, Who regulates food? Australians’ perceptions of responsibility for food safety. Aust J Prim Health 16:344–351 (2010). 10 Henderson J, Coveney J, Ward PR and Taylor AW, Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of consumers. ANZ J Publ Health 35:319–324 (2011). 11 Henderson J, Ward P, Coveney J and Meyer S, Trust in the Australian food supply: innocent until proven guilty. Health Risk Soc 14:257–272 (2012). 12 FSANZ, Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007: a Benchmark Survey of Consumers’ Attitudes to Food Issues. Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Canberra (2008). 13 Buchler S, Smith K and Lawrence G, Food risks old and new: demographic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia. J Sociol 46:1–22 (2010).
14 Beers M, Haemolytic–uraemic syndrome: of sausages and legislation. ANZ J Publ Health 20:453–455 (1996). 15 Cox D, Evans G and Lease H, The influence of information and beliefs about technology on the acceptance of novel food technologies: a conjoint study of farmed prawn concepts. Food Qual Prefer 18:813–823 (2007). 16 FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand), Melamine in foods from China. [Online]. (2008). Available: http://www. foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2008/mela mineinfoods from china/ [14 February 2013]. 17 Breidbach A, Bouten K, Kroger K and Ulberth F, Capabilities of laboratories to determine melamine in food – results of an international proficiency test. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:503–510 (2010). 18 Blair W, Food: a Growth Industry. Report of the Food Regulation Review. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (1998). 19 Hobbs J, Fearne A and Spriggs J, Incentive structures for food safety and quality assurance: an international comparison. Food Control 13:77–81 (2002). 20 Martin T, Dean E, Hardy B, Johnson T, Jolly F, Matthews F, et al., A new era for food safety regulation in Australia. Food Control 14:429–438 (2003). 21 Winger R, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Food Control 14:355 (2003). 22 Healy M, Brooke-Taylor S and Liehne P, Reform of food regulation in Australia and New Zealand. Food Control 14:357–365 (2003). 23 Sacks G, Swinburn B and Lawrence M, A systematic policy approach to changing the food system and physical environments to prevent obesity. ANZ Health Pol 5:13 (2008). 24 Buchler S, Smith K and Lawrence G, Food risks, old and new. Demographic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia. J Sociol 46:353–374 (2010). 25 Taylor AW, Coveney J, Ward PR, Dal Grande E, Mamerow L, Henderson J, et al., The Australian Food and Trust Survey: demographic indicators associated with food safety and quality concerns. Food Control 25:476–483 (2012).
1973
J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94: 1970–1973
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
![[Australia]Food Safety.](/assets/img/hold.png)
