The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) could not efficiently tackle a similar incident to Sudan 1, a senior Food Standards Agency (FSA) official has claimed.
When questioning Dr Andrew Wadge, director of the FSA’s Food Safety Policy Group, the panel reviewing the handling of the Sudan 1 incident asked: “Is the EFSA arm dealing with such things not working efficiently enough to respond to a Sudan 1 incident tomorrow?”
Wadge replied: “I think that’s right.” However, he added: “EFSA is moving to a point where it would be able to respond more quickly. I do have confidence in EFSA’s ability to carry out a risk assessment.”
The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) called for a single EU-level risk response strategy for major food scares during its session with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) panel reviewing the issue.
“It is important that a proportionate, risk-based response is agreed at EU level, including standardised analytical methodology and levels of detection,” said an FDF spokeswoman.
The trade organisation welcomed internal FSA recommendations that a scoping group comprising key stakeholders should be set up in the wake of complex incidents to establish their nature, but added: “We have yet to see this put into practice”
There was confusion in the hearings over who could call a scoping group. Some parties believed it to be solely the FSA’s right, while others thought a range of relevant parties could suggest that one should be convened.
“If members of the industry don’t think they can call a scoping group, I think we need to clarify that,” said Wadge. However, he added: “Whether you need to call a scoping group is not always clear at the outset.”
Some industry representatives were surprised a scoping group was not called after long grain rice in the UK was contaminated with an illegal US GM strain last year. Wadge admitted: “In hindsight, we should have set up a scoping group on GM rice.”
Wadge and others responsible for the risk management of the Sudan 1 incident were criticised by the panel for failing to include the possibility of deliberate food tampering in their review report. The panel said: “The guidance written in reponse to Sudan 1 says chemical toxins could get into food through one of three routes. It doesn’t mention it could get in through means such as criminal action or terrorist activity.”
Nick Tomlinson, head of the FSA’s chemical safety division, who helped compile the report, responded: “We certainly saw this as a living document.”
To improve communication between the FSA and the food industry during food scares, the panel proposed that agency experts could work alongside food and drink firms, possibly even on sabbatical.
Some suggested that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ plan for exotic animal diseases provided a possible framework for response to serious food scares.
Review hearings that took place on May 24 and May 30 involved representatives from all parts of the supply chain. The panel was chaired by Professor Doug Georgala, formerly head of Unilever’s Colworth House laboratory and former director of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council’s Institute of Food Research.