The research also highlighted the absence of adequate guidance and the need for the processing sector to take a proactive rather than reactive approach to food safety as key.
It was released in advance of this week’s decision by the US Senate to proceed with the Food Safety Modernization Act which, if passed, would give regulators the authority to order product recalls, give it greater access to company records, and require all food companies to keep detailed food safety plans.
But while the AMM gives a frank appraisal of US processors, it fully acknowledges that the food chain is long and complex, with many opportunities for contamination between farm and fork.
“Food safety problems may arise at any stage from food production to consumption: on the farm, at the processing facility, at the retailer, or in the hands of consumers”, said the report Global Food Safety.
Flawed model
The research identifies one major goal of food processing as the killing, inhibiting, or removal of pathogens from foods. But it adds that some processing conditions can facilitate pathogen growth, so that pathogen levels in the processed product are higher than in the raw ingredients. Examination of both raw material inputs and equipment and procedures they use is critical to producing safe food.
However, the report outlines a series of systemic problems within the processing sector that present barriers to achieving this – particularly that industry too often only seeks to improve practices after crises.
“In recent years, we have seen erosion in research and development efforts at food companies and a reluctance to innovate or reform practices,” it said. “Moreover, ageing facilities and equipment that lack good sanitary design are obstacles to processing food safely. Too often, low profit margins mean that innovation and repairs are only undertaken after major outbreaks of foodborne illness. Often, capital improvements are not made routinely and systematically, but only in response to emergencies.”
The study characterises this as a “flawed model” from a public health perspective, instead urging that processing facilities “be repaired and upgraded on a continuous basis to prevent outbreaks of foodborne illness”.
HACCP overhaul needed
The AMM also said that previously unrecognized or newly emerging hazards may also cause foodborne illnesses and are only detected when epidemiologic data suggest an association between a particular food and a particular pathogen or illness. The salmonellosis linked to contaminated peanut butter is one example of this, it added.
Technology – such as the introduction of the PulseNet system - can play a key role in reducing the risks that have grown with the increasing complexity of the food distribution system. The system uses DNA testing to compare the genetic fingerprints of pathogenic bacteria from patients and suspect foods. The fingerprints are loaded into a database where they can be compared and indistinguishable fingerprints detected, said the report.
The AMM identifies the “absence of adequate guidance” as a problem for processors and a barrier to cutting food safety risks at the processing stage. Processors are required to follow Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), which support the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system. While the report recognises that GMP are “frequently not fully implemented” by processors, it adds, with what appears to be a criticism, that to be effective the methods must have “full buy-in from processors, which means in part that they must be economically realistic”.
The body said the practices should also be “clear and reasonably easy to implement” and adds there is often confusion among processors over terms used in guidance notes.
“The HACCP concept is currently ripe for re-examination and the principles may need to be revisited and updated to reflect four decades worth of experience with HACCP”, it concluded.