Mainstreaming Food Safety in Food Security Programming: The Development Challenges International...

Mainstreaming Food Safety in Food Security Programming: The Development Challenges

International Food Aid & Development Conference

Kansas City, Missouri June 27-29, 2011

John E. Lamb Principal Associate

Agriculture and Food Security

4550 Montgomery Ave, Suite 800 NorthBethesda, MD 20814

John_Lamb@abtassoc.com

Abt Associates Inc.

You have already heard various key messages that I would like to echo…

Food/water safety (FWS) matters greatly to human health and welfare because its absence: (1) causes great economic. social and individual harm; (2) disrupts commerce and trade; and (3) weakens especially the competitive position of small producers and low income countries in the agri-food arena

Abt Associates Inc.

The safety of food cannot be separated from the safety of water, because water is used in food preparation, and many food safety pathogens and other contaminants are borne by water

Abt Associates Inc.

FWS spans both the plant and animal kingdoms, indeed many of the most worrisome diseases derive from livestock species and if zoonotic, can pass to humans

Abt Associates Inc.

FWS spans both the plant and animal kingdoms, indeed many of the most worrisome diseases derive from livestock species and if zoonotic, can pass to humans

FWS is a critical and integral part of food security, and should be treated as such

31 March 2011Abt Associates Inc.

…other key messages that you have already heard

The safety of food and water safety drives---and if compromised, can adversely affect---essential nutrition goals within the food security and human health fields

Two key indicators of malnutrition—stunting and wasting—are linked to food quality and safety via poor diets, diarrhea, and gut health

Microbial pathogens (especially fecal-oral) and toxins (especially mycotoxins) are particularly harmful to vulnerable populations

FWS matters greatly to vulnerable populations, which include the immuno-compromised, the aged, the poor and ultra-poor, pregnant and lactating women, children under five in general, and the first 1,000 days of life especially

Additional key messages to convey here

Food/water safety is significantly under-represented and under-invested in food security policy and programming

There are myriad identifiable factors that explain the underinvestment, and many can be overcome

An integrated approach to food security is needed, which would include more explicit recognition of FWS

FWS presents a systemic challenge—which the regulatory bodies and international agencies can best address—yet there are specific risks such as aflatoxin that warrant significant investment by donors, analogous to what the development community has long accepted for certain communicable diseases

FWS presents many opportunities for partnerships of all kinds

In considering how to better address FWS, one must start with the regulators and associated institutions

1a. National regulatory bodies: e.g. Food and Drug Administration, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service

1b. Public standard setting bodies: Codex Alimentarius, World Animal Health Organization (OIE), International Plant Protection Consortium

1c. World Trade Organization: i.e. Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures

However, there are seven other categories of actors who engage in food safety-related activities

2. International public organizations: UN agencies (FAO, WHO, UNCTAD); international institutions (World Bank, IFAD, regional development banks; and the CGIAR centers (e.g. IFPRI, ILRI)

3. Multilateral organizations: European Union, APEC, etc

4. Bilateral DA agencies: USAID, USDA, DfID, GIZ, Danida, SIDA, etc

5. Private standard bodies and schemes: ISO, GFSI, Global Gap, etc

6. Private agri-food companies: all!

7. CSO’s: trade associations, advocacy groups, foundations, etc

8. Centers of excellence: e.g. JIFSAN, CAFT, UC Davis, KSU

What is the rationale for the international development community to get more involved in food safety?

1. Food safety (and agricultural health) control systems in developing countries are often not up to best practice standards

2. This results in adverse impacts on human health and welfare, as well as economic and social progress, that interfere with higher level development objectives for food security and the MDGs generally

3. Growth in trade, coupled with the evolution of long standing hazards and appearance of new ones, are outstripping the risk mitigation capacity of developing country food control systems (and even those of many developed countries)

4. Regulators increasingly recognize that they cannot inspect their way to a safer food supply, need to get closer to source areas, and must collaborate with a whole host of international, public and private partners to make the world of food safer for consumers

What is rationale for the international development community to get more involved in food safety?

5. Although the private sector has made tremendous progress in upgrading proprietary supply chains, there are millions of suppliers and handlers who remain outside the commercial chains

6. There is a great disparity between expectations, incentives, and performance between modern supply chains that aim for export markets and traditional supply chains that deliver to domestic and regional markets

7. Upgrading requires developmental investment, and domestic especially funding is very scarce

8. Host governments rarely approach this challenge pro-actively, have many other demands, and lack technical resources

9. Development agencies get asked, and in fact can help

What stands in the way of greater involvement?

Sheer complexity and technical nature of the topic

Relative lack of good burden data and difficulty in risk assessment as well as economic analysis of alternative mitigation strategies

Dispersion of mandates across agencies, coupled with stovepiping and ineffective interagency processes

Competition for scarce resources, coupled with tendency to favor bricks and mortar (e.g. analytical labs)

Scarcity of appropriate models for intervention

Limited awareness by the general public

Lack of political will (until a food safety crisis occurs!)

Perspectives of international development community and the regulatory community are related yet distinct

Both strive to improve the public welfare, but view it differently

The regulators’ mandate to protect domestic consumers, which is not a top-of-mind concern for international aid agencies

The mission of aid agencies is to pursue economic and social progress (especially for the underserved, doing no harm to the rest)

Regulators are mainly concerned with mitigating risks (i.e. preventing negative outcomes), while aid agencies are mainly concerned with pursuing opportunities (i.e. fostering positive outcomes)

Except for risk prevention and incident management, regulators tend to emphasize the food safety control system, while development agencies are more driven by themes

There are also significant differences in approach

Host country priority-setting vs. home country

Degree of reliance on the social sciences and practical knowledge vs. biological science

Declining share of attention being paid to international trade by donors vs. regional and internal commerce

There are also significant differences in approach

Host country priority-setting vs. home country

Degree of reliance on the social sciences and practical knowledge vs. biological science

Declining share of attention being paid to international trade by donors vs. regional and internal commerce

Tendency to emphasize pursuit of economic opportunities more than response to hazards (i.e. value chain development vs. risk analysis)

Development agencies see food safety as part of a broader field of agri-food standards, which in turn is part of competitiveness, while regulatories remain focussed

6. Private agri-food companies: all!

7. CSO’s: trade associations, advocacy groups, foundations, etc

8. Centers of Excellence: domestic and international

Diverse mix of public, private for profit and non-profit civil society organizations

The various US agencies are few among many

Interventions take four main forms: standards, advocacy, capacity-building,

and financial support

Past involvement by development agencies in food safety capacity building in developing countries

Phase 1 (1960-1990): Establishment of basic public infrastructure with/in host country governments (ministries, centers of excellence) spanning labs, control points, policies, regulations, procedures for registration and inspection, standards, metrology, analytical capacity

Phase 2 (1985-2010): Working with private exporters/associations and host governments to assure compliance with: grades and standards; packaging and labeling requirements; pesticide registration, use and tolerances; micro-bacteriological contamination; use/presence of antibiotics, colorants, allergens; and registration requirements for food establishments, all with emphasis on high value products/markets

Phase 3 (1990-2005): Support for public capacity building for trade integration, which included for regional and bilateral FTAs striving for harmonization, equivalence, or mutual recognition, as well as better border handling

Current involvement by international aid agencies in food safety capacity building in developing countries

Phase 4 (1995-present): Upgrading public sector capacity (monitoring, inspection, lab services, certification, participation in standard-setting, and notification) to meet disciplines accepted under WTO SPS Agreement (and in some cases EU accession)

Phase 5 (1995-present): Working with private producers, processors, and handlers, usually in groups along priority supply chains, to improve sourcing and logistics, install quality management systems, adopt/adapt GAP and GMP, and in general satisfy escalating private agri-food requirements by doing HACCP plans, obtaining certification, managing multiple audits, and dealing with rejections

Phase 6 (1990-present): Upgrading infrastructure and systems in both public and private sector to deal preemptively and in crisis with emerging diseases (especially Cyclospora cayetanensis, BSE, H5N1, H1N1, E. Coli O104: H4), and to manage outbreaks or incidents relating to recurrent pathogens such as Vibrio vulnificus, Salmonella enteritidis, and Listeria monocytogenes.

Examples of World Bank activity in food safety

Support for Global Public Partnerships (GPPs),e.g. WTO Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF); observer in WTO deliberations and active player in workshops of SPS Committee; leading role in global response to HPAI (morphed into One World One Health); APEC FSCF

Support for Public Private Partnerships (PPP), e.g. “Trade Standards Practitioners Network”

Economic and Sector Work (ESW), e.g. “Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Countries”

Knowledge Products (KP),e.g. “Guide for Assessing and Responding to Needs for National Agri-food Laboratory Improvement”

Analytical and Advisory Assistance (AAA),e.g. Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies, SPS Capacity/Needs Assessments

Operational Lending e.g. $100 MM to Jilin Agricultural Product Quality and Safety Project in China

Examples of USAID activity in food safety

Technical assistance to producer groups and exporter associationse.g. Awareness-raising concerning US requirements for food safety in imported products; supporting establishment of EurepGAP training and certification service in Egypt via HEIA; support for HACCP plan formulation/execution as well as compliance with private standards)

Training(e.g. Safe use of pesticides in Central America; GAP and GMP training in many different countries)

Support for public/private partnerships(e.g. Creation of PIPA’A for Central America; MOUs with US associations such as PMA, United Fresh, CropLife)

Crisis management(e.g. bringing FDA & EPA in to deal with minor use pesticide issues affecting specialty vegetables; Model Program to deal with Cyclospora in red raspberries; Salmonellosis incident tied to Honduran melons)

Lessons learned about best practices in capacity-building

Capacity-building is needed at institutional, industry, enterprise and individual level

Capacity building needs to address: (1) systemic challenges; (2) market access requirements; and (3) specific hazards/risks

Systemic challenges are best addressed:

Technically by regulatory agencies and associated professionals or consultants

With major funding from the World Bank, regional development banks, and entities like IFAD, and

Co-funding from the host country’s public budget

Lessons learned about best practices in capacity-building (cont.)

Official, standards-based market access regimes such as DR-CAFTA, the EU General Food Law (2002), and the US FIMSA are best addressed:

Consistent with SPS disciplines and international standards

With technically guidance from the relevant regulatory agencies and associated professionals

With technical assistance and training funded by the corresponding donor agency

Co-funding from the host country government

Private access regimes are best addressed:

Jointly by actors within the value streams of interest and associated supply chains,

Guided by commercial requirements that are set by industry via leading private standard-schemes such as GlobalGAP and benchmarking systems such as the Global Food Safety Initiative

Ideally with development agencies and NGOs helping to ensure compliance while fostering inclusivity and sustainability.

Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards

Technical and Commercial Requirements

(identity, quality, condition, presentation, etc)

Environ. Standards

Social Standards

Supply Chain Management

From an agricultural development point of view, food safety is part of a bigger hierarchy of standards

Service

Regarding the on-going controversy regarding public versus private standards for food safety

Private standards have ever increasing technical sophistication and organization, based on sound science and Codex, yet backed by market power

Continued resistance by a significant yet declining portion of the WTO SPS Committee members to the emergence of private standards (“requirements”), and some NGOs, seems counterproductive

Far better to constructively engage with leading private programs for benchmarking, standard-setting, accreditation, certification, audit, then seek to influence them, and work with them to address official SPS issues where their outreach, expertise, and resources can lead to progress beyond what the SPS system can hope for

Capacity building must include not just one-off interventions but rather continuous improvement in hard and soft infrastructure and people

There is unmet need and opportunity for coherent, consistent approaches to both technical assistance and training that would lower design and delivery costs

At the same time, an on-going need for customization to match the circumstances of trading partners and specifics of major product categories and supply chains

Efforts must be sustainable over time in technical, financial, and especially political terms

Lessons learned by international aid agencies about financing capacity-building for food safety

Public sector technical expertise for public sector capacity building (e.g. FDA) is not yet backed by suitable sources of funding (e.g. The World Bank); and vice versa

Overall progress in global food safety depends on close collaboration between the public and private sectors within host countries, within target markets, and between host and target country

The private sector has waited too long to contribute significant funding outside their own supply chains in order to meet the more general challenge for the agri-food industry and the overall population

Lessons learned regarding developed vs developing country capacity building

Efforts to date by industrialized countries to raise the food safety bar in/for their own markets have tended to create a two-tiered system with significant exclusionary effects on less capable countries and smaller suppliers

Future efforts need to explicitly provide a pathway for continuous improvement, as well as incentives, without diluting the desired level of standards

The global food safety community has not yet begun to address the challenge of low food safety within developing countries themselves

Lack of data and awareness both contribute to this

Emerging involvement by international aid agencies in food safety capacity building in developing countries

Phase 7 (2008-present): Participating in global efforts to deal in a coordinated and comprehensive manner with cross-sectoral challenges that involve multiple risks, such as the One World/One Health Initiative

Phase 8 (2009-present): Testing and establishing new partnerships of all kinds for:

Multi-country food safety system upgrading and training efforts sponsored by regional trade bodies such as APEC, or interested regulatory agencies such the EC’s DG-SANCO, or the US FDA, FSIS, and APHIS

Assured compliance for priority value streams

Mitigation efforts for high-value threats

Phase 9 (2010-present): Partnering with non-traditional development organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to deal with complex hazards that affect agriculture, health and nutrition, such as Aflatoxin, which will be discussed briefly to wrap up this presentation

Phase 10 (2010-present): Bringing together best practices in governance (including public expenditure reviews and regulatory rule-making), risk and economic analysis, and food safety management, to come up with a new paradigm

Aflatoxins are a significant health problem in developing countries (Source: Felicia Wu, WHO)

• AFT exposure causes a significant health burden in Africa (& E. Asia)

• A number of health effects can occur, that are often interacting with other disease factors (e.g. infection, malnutrition)

• 25,200-155,000 aflatoxin-induced liver cancer cases globally each year.

– Of which 40% estimated in Africa

• Numerous outbreaks of acute aflatoxicosis have been reported

• Stunted growth and immune effects are other potentially important health consequences of AFT exposure

• Actions targeted at small and subsistence farmers especially needed

• Interventions necessary on several levels: food production and storage, education, public health (e.g. HBV vaccination, nutritional supplements, sanitation)

• Aflatoxin: Common contaminant in staple foods

• Produced by Fungi , Aspergillus spp.

– Aspergillus flavus toxin

• Infects:

– Cereals: maize, wheat, barley, sorghum, rice

– Others: peanuts, other nuts, cotton seed

Aflatoxin producing fungi

CIMMYT, 1997

Aspergillus ear rot on maizeSource: Rebecca J.

Nelson

Contamination is worse during dry periods.During droughts the zone containing

contaminated crops enlarges.

35°N35°N

35°S35°S Zone with PerennialContamination Risk

Aflatoxin Contamination is a Perennial Concern in Warm Climates

Source: Peter J. Cotty, USDA/ARS

Phase I: Before MaturityPhase I: Before Maturity

Developing crops become infected

Associated with crop damage (insect, bird, stress).

Crop may exhibit BGYF (bright-green-yellow fluorescence).

Favored by high temperature (night) and dry conditions.

Phase II: After MaturityPhase II: After Maturity

Level increases in mature crop.

May occur before or after harvest.

Seed is vulnerable ‘til consumed.

Associated with high humidity in the field, improper crop storage or transportation.

Rain on the mature crop increases contamination.

Aflatoxin Contamination of Crops Occurs in Two Phases

Aflatoxin Market

20 ppb≥ Detoxification

500 ppb> Blender

300 ppb> Beef feedlot

200 ppb> Feed producer

100 ppb> Feed Markets

20 ppb>Human Food;

15 ppb> Corn Flour Mill

10 ppb> Corn Processor

1 ppb> Nuts for Export

0.5 ppb> Discounted Milk

0.3 ppb> Full Value Milk

Contaminated Crops have Uses and Can be ValuableContaminated Crops have Uses and Can be Valuable(Markets needed that value crops unsafe for human consumption)(Markets needed that value crops unsafe for human consumption)

= less than 2,500 ppb

= infected and no toxin

= 2,500 to 15,000 ppb

= over 15,000 ppb

Lee, et al., 1980. Cereal Chemistry 57:340-343.

Aflatoxin Prevalence Can Vary Even within a Single Ear of CornAflatoxin Prevalence Can Vary

Even within a Single Ear of Corn

Evidence for aflatoxin exposure and impaired growth: Benin and Togo

Gong et al., BMJ, 2002;325:20-1

R2 = 0.3766, P = 0.0001

R2 = 0.3680, P = 0.0038

Figure: AF-albumin adduct levels and growth faltering

Aspergillus flavus occurs throughout warm regions, yet the fungus varies widely in several important traits.

Number of

farmers

Mean B-aflatoxin (ng/g)Reduction

(%)AflaSafe™ Control

Maigana 22 2.1 9.8 78

Pampaida 10 3.6 27.2 87

Lere 9 5.1 11.8 57

Birnin-Gwari 10 2.3 12.6 82

Mean 3.3 15.4 79

Aflatoxin Reduction in Maize after Aflatoxin Reduction in Maize after AflaSafe™ Application in Kaduna, Nigeria AflaSafe™ Application in Kaduna, Nigeria

Source: Peter J. Cotty, USDA/ARS and Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, IITA, Ibadan

Aflatoxin reduction in 4 zones 4 months after Aflatoxin reduction in 4 zones 4 months after poor storage in Nigeriapoor storage in Nigeria

Birnin Gwari Lere Maigana Pampaida

) Control

Treated

85% 82% 99% 95%% reduction in aflatoxin content in treated fields over control

Source: Peter J. Cotty, USDA/ARS and Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, IITA, Ibadan

Summary of recommendations

The development community needs to take food and water safety more seriously, and increase investment, to facilitate commerce and trade, and inclusive agricultural growth, while protecting all consumers

High priority investments in the FWS area for the USG should be defined in relation to major thrusts such as Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative

The USG should continue to identify and support target high value hazards such as contaminated water and food-borne mycotoxins that stand in the way of higher level development objectives, and could even be worsened by emphasis on susceptible crops (maize, rice, and oilseeds)

The USG should more actively seek partnerships with private sector enterprises and associations, as well as private foundations, to leverage technical and financial resources

Mainstreaming Food Safety in Food Security Programming: The Development Challenges International...

Documents

Mainstreaming Indigenous Fruits & Vegetables for food

YES BANK MAINSTREAMING DEVELOPMENT INTO INDIAN BANKING

Mainstreaming climate change resilience into development …pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10047IIED.pdf · 2013. 4. 11. · MAiNstrEAMiNg CliMAtE ChANgE rEsiliENCE iNto dEvEloPMENt PlANNiNg

MAINSTREAMING GENDER INTO TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT …

Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning

Mainstreaming Mainframe Development with Agile, DevOps Intro presentation... · Mainstreaming Mainframe Development with Agile, ... environment to the mainframe environment ... process

Mainstreaming Alternative Development in · Mainstreaming Alternative Development Mainstreaming Alternative Development in Thailand, Lao PDR and Myanmar is a report prepared by Ronarld

Mainstreaming the environment in Malawi’s development

Mainstreaming biodiversity in development policy and

Mainstreaming Community Economic Development

Y Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems · Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index (to

Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development in Bangladesh€¦ · · 2017-07-10REVIEWARTICLE Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development in Bangladesh

Mainstreaming Sustainable Development into National and · PDF file · 2016-01-18June 2014 Mainstreaming Sustainable Development into National and Subnational Development Planning

Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development and the ... · workshop on “Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development and the Sustainable Development Goals: sharing and developing workable

Mainstreaming environmental services in Indonesia's development policies

Migration, Development and Mainstreaming

Gender mainstreaming the Rural Development Programme

Gender Mainstreaming in Development Projects

Gender Mainstreaming - Food and Agriculture Organization · 7 Gender Mainstreaming in Value Chain Development II. Purpose To understand the purpose of this manual, one should understand

Mainstreaming Economic Development for inclusiveness