European Food Scares and Their Impact on EU Food Policy’

European Food Scares and Their Impact on EU Food Policy’

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228345904 ‘European Food Scares and Their Impact on EU Food Policy’ ARTICLE in BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL · JANUARY 2007 Impact Factor: 0.77 · DOI: 10.1108/00070700710718507 CITATIONS 66 READS 1,525 3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING: Tim Knowles Manchester Metropolitan University 21 PUBLICATIONS 395 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Morven G. McEachern Retrieved on: 09 February 2016 European food scares and their impact on EU food policy Tim Knowles and Richard Moody Hollings Faculty, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, and Morven G. McEachern Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to chart the wide range of food scares reported throughout the EU over the period 1986-2006 and explores their impact on EU policy. Design/methodology/approach – There is much extant research that solely investigates the occurrences of specific food scares, however; little emphasis is given to the responses of policy makers. This research aims to narrow this gap in the literature by reviewing the major food scares, which have occurred throughout the EU and the subsequent policy responses. Findings – A number of food scares have dominated media reports over the last two decades, but this study reveals the increasing emergence of rare serotypes of foodborne pathogens, as well as a rising trend of EU-wide contaminant and animal disease-related food scares. Simultaneously, there is evidence of evolution from a product-focused food policy to a risk-based policy, which has developed into a tentative EU consumer-based food policy. Inevitably, in a market of 25 member-states the concept of food quality varies between countries and therein justifies the need for responsive policy development, which embraces the single market philosophy. Research limitations/implications – A typology of EU food scares is advanced and discussed in detail, with comments being made on their impact. In addition, the paper highlights the complexity of a EU consumer, which has led to a need for research into the maximisation of the satisfaction of purchasers by reinsuring their individual “right to choose”. Originality/value – This paper provides a unique insight into a wide range of European food scares (e.g. microbiological, contaminants, animal disease-related) and EU policy makers’ responses to such food scares. Keywords Food industry, Food safety, Food controls, European Union Paper type General review Introduction Prior to the mid 1970s, food safety was neither a significant political, scientific or societal concern (Cooter and Fulton, 2001). One of the earliest recorded food safety incidents took place in southern France in AD944, where 40,000 people died of ergotism (Purvis, 2004). However, no one referred to this as a “food hazard” (see Fife-Schaw and Rowe, 2000), “moral panic” (see Beardsworth, 1990) or “food scare” (see Mitchell and Greatorex, 1990). In fact, the term “food scare” first appeared in the print media in the mid-1980s, in relation to Tylenol tablets being laced with cyanide (Campbell and Fitzgerald, 2001), an activity which is now referred to as “bioterrorism” (Nestle, 2004). No lexical definition of the term “food scare” exists, with the result that the term is applied to a variety of food safety-related contexts. It is generally associated with spiralling public anxiety over food safety incidents and escalating media attention that supplements such events. Moreover, whether some safety issues develop into fully-fledged food scares or not, depends mainly on the magnitude of risk faced by The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm European food scares 43 British Food Journal Vol. 109 No. 1, 2007 pp. 43-67 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0007-070X DOI 10.1108/00070700710718507 consumers and the extent of media attention devoted to that specific food safety issue. Note the scale of media interest often intensifies further if government bodies appear reluctant to disseminate relevant information (Tansey and Worsley, 1999). Due to varying levels of consumer trust in the media, scientists and government officials, country-specific differences may also occur regarding the development of food scares (Lindgreen, 2003). Since the mid 1980s, most Western European countries have experienced at least one or more significant food scare (e.g. BSE, E-Coli, Salmonella, Dioxin residues). In terms of their evolution, both cultural (e.g. consumer ambivalence towards food; increased numbers of consumers removed from food production) and socio-economic (e.g. consumer emphasis on price/value) trends in conjunction with intensive media coverage interact to incite acute bouts of widespread public anxiety (Frewer et al., 1993; Fitzgerald and Campbell, 2001; De Boer et al., 2003). Consequently, this process creates a short-term negative impact upon consumer consumption/purchase behaviour as well as negatively impact upon the producer, manufacturer or retailer (Roosen et al., 2003; Friedberg, 2004). Mazzocchi (2004, p. 1) also acknowledges this fairly standard pattern, but adds public concern often gradually decreases as media attention moves away from the issue, thus returning to a new “equilibrium”. A number of various activist/pressure groups (e.g. PETA, WSPA, RSPCA), scientific organisations, government bodies and journalists all play a key role in providing food safety information. Consequently, the magnitude of European food scares and their media coverage has provided momentum for the emergence of the “informed consumer” (Assael, 2004; Berry and McEachern, 2005) as well as a switch in emphasis from a EU food policy to a consumerist-centred food policy. The aim of this paper is to conduct a review of the major food scares that have occurred throughout Europe during the period 1986 to mid-2006 and investigate both the reaction and precautionary measures subsequently implemented by European policy makers. It is anticipated that the main contribution of this paper will be to provide a unique insight into a wide range of “food scares” and present a critical analysis relating to EU policy makers’ responses to many of these food scares. European food scares – an overview The development of European surveillance networks intensified as a result of the many European-wide food scares during the 1990s (Fisher and Gill, 2001). In addition to epidemiologic surveillance systems for humans, it is also necessary to conduct surveillance of animal diseases. This aids the provision of information for both international trade and zoonotic-related disease outbreaks. Consequently, reporting variations frequently occur as some European countries choose voluntary as opposed to mandatory reporting systems. One example of a surveillance system is Enter-net, which monitors enteric infections (e.g. Salmonella, E. coli) within Europe. This EU-wide network is currently supported by the Basic Surveillance Network and other Disease Specific Networks such as EUROCJD. Despite the addition of ten new member states to the European Union (EU) in 2004, few food scare examples from newer members such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are included in this paper, due to limited monitoring systems. Further explanation of this limited access is provided by Kaiser and Coulombier (2006) who conclude that, 11 EU countries possess no formal mechanism for dissemination of “epidemic intelligence” (i.e. identification, verification, BFJ 109,1 44 assessment and investigation of potential health threats). Subsequently, Lenglet and Herna´ndez-Pezzi (2006) in their comparison of European surveillance systems, call for a standardisation of EU monitoring and reporting procedures in the EU. In order that both a context and appropriate typology can be advanced, Table I illustrates a chronological timeline of the main “food scares” that have occurred over the period 1986-2006 throughout Europe. These are defined as single or collective incidents, which are particularly focused upon by the media and by relevant Government agencies. For ease of reporting, the scares are categorised as microbiological, contaminant and animal disease-related (e.g. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) via new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD)) food incidents. It is apparent that the origins/cause of each of the reported food scares may vary (i.e. specific outbreak of E. coli, activist campaigns/publications detailing specific warnings) but the inclusion of all three categories is based on the fact that each type of food scare has driven both consumer buying behaviour trends and food policy developments throughout Europe. Microbiological related scares – Salmonella, Campylobacter, Botulism, Listeria, E. coli One of the first major microbiological-related “food scares” reported to have an adverse effect on consumer perceptions and consumption behaviour throughout Europe was the foodborne pathogen of Salmonella. In particular, between the months of May and October in 1988, a number of UK food poisoning incidents were reported from hospitals, city banquets and the House of Lords, each of which were attributed to the consumption of eggs and cheese (Tansey and Worsley, 1999; Atkins and Bowler, 2001). In November 1988, the Department of Health issued a UK warning to the general public to avoid eating raw eggs (Lacey, 1989). One month later, the former UK Health Minister Edwina Currie announced on Independent Television News that the majority of UK egg production was infected with Salmonella. Following a lawsuit by 12 UK egg producers, Edwina Currie MP resigned and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)[1] set aside £20 million to compensate egg producers (Tansey and Worsley, 1999). Salmonella levels in UK-produced eggs are now a third of what they were in 1996 (FSA, 2004). Similarly, Denmark has also witnessed a significant reduction in Salmonella cases related to eggs. Here, 60 per cent of human cases were egg-related in 1997 reducing to 31 per cent in 2002 (Mølbak, 2004). In contrast, Spanish foodborne outbreaks as a result of egg/egg product consumption have not declined since 1998 (Crespo et al., 2005). The main causative agent associated with eggs is the Salmonella serotype Enteritidis. Gillespie and Elson (2005) conclude that the main source of Salmonella Enteritidis infections in northern England in 2005 was due to increased UK imports of Spanish eggs. Other food scares associated with Salmonella Enteritidis were reported in 1998 from Greece (n ¼ 28) and Napoli, Italy (n ¼ 9) the sources being identified as hamburgers and cream cheese (Hadjichristodoulou et al., 1999; Panico et al., 1999) respectively. Twenty-five cases were also reported in the Netherlands in 2004, the cause was identified as contaminated bean sprouts (Fernandes et al., 2000). The second most common salmonella species is Salmonella Typhimurium. In 2000, a European outbreak (n ¼ 396) of this strain occurred in five countries: 184 from Iceland; 165 from the UK (i.e. 141 from England & Wales and 24 from Scotland); 28 from the Netherlands; and 19 from Germany (Crook, 2000). Lettuce was identified as a key source from Iceland, but no single source was identified for all five countries. European food scares 45 Microbiological Contaminants Zoonotic/Epizootic 1988 Salmonella in eggs (UK) – – 1989 Listeria (UK) Alar pesticide (EU) BSE (UK) Salmonella Enteritidis (UK) Sewage contamination of fresh meat (Fr) Botulism in hazelnut puree (UK) 1990 – Benzene in Perrier bottled water (EU) – 1992 Listeria (Fr) – – 1995 Campylobacter (UK) – – E. coli (Sw) 1996 E. coli (UK/Sw) – CJD deaths (UK) FMD (Ty/Gr/Bul) 1998 Salmonella Enteritidis (Gr) – – Salmonella Bongori (It) Botulism (It/Fr/UK/No) 1999 Salmonella Typhimurium (Fr) Dioxins in animal feeds (EU) CJD alert in red wine (Fr) Listeria (Fr) Fungicide/poor carbon dioxide in Coca-Cola (EU) 2000 Salmonella Enteritidis (Ne) – BSE (Fr/Gy/Sp) Salmonella Typhimurium (UK/Ic/Ne/Gy) E. coli (Sp) 2001 Listeriosis (Be) Olive oil contamination (Sp/UK) BSE (It) FMD(UK/Ir/Fr/Ne) 2002 – Nitrofuran in prawns (UK) FMD (UK) Nitrofen in wheat (EU) Acrylamide (EU) 2003 Campylobacter (UK/Sp) Mercury poisoning in swordfish (UK) – E. coli (Dk) Sudan 1 (EU) 2004 E. coli (Dk) Lasalocid in eggs (UK) Avian flu (EU) Salmonella Enteritidis (Ne) PCB’s and dioxins in salmon (UK) Salmonella Bovis-morbificans (Gy) Sudan 1 (EU) 2005 Salmonella Bovis-morbificans (Gy) Sudan 1 (EU) Avian flu (EU) Salmonella Typhimurium (UK/No/Dk/Ne) Para Red (EU) Campylobacter (Dk)/Listeria (Ne) Salmonella Hadar (Sp)/E. coli (Fr) Salmonella Stourbridge (UK/Fr/Swe/Sz/Gy/Au) 2006 Salmonella Montevideo (UK) Benzene in soft drinks (Fr/UK) Dioxins in animal feed (Be/Ne) Avian flu (EU) Table I. Summary of main European food scares BFJ 109,1 46 Another minor scare (n ¼ 6) linked to imported minced beef from Poland was reported in Norway and Denmark in 2005 (Isakbaeva et al., 2005). However, on a much bigger scale, Denmark reported another outbreak (n ¼ 26) that year, the source linked to one pig herd whose pork was prohibited from entering the Danish food chain (Torpdahl et al., 2006). Again in 2005, the Netherlands reported another major outbreak (n ¼ 165), with beef suggested as the likely source (Kivi et al., 2005). Other less common Salmonella organisms have also been linked to food scares throughout Europe. An outbreak (n ¼ 7) of Salmonella Bongori (i.e. one of the rarer serotypes) was reported in Sicily in 1998. This incidence was found to be exclusive to this area of Italy and only pathogenic in young children (Nastasi et al., 1999). The source was linked to both pigeon faeces and two sewage plants. In Germany, between November and March 2005, a major scare transpired involving 525 cases of Salmonella Bovis-morbificans, resulting in the death of one elderly woman (Gilsdorf et al., 2005). The source of the scare was linked to raw minced pork but no similar scares involving the pathogen were recorded in other parts of Europe. Later that year, Spain reported a major food scare involving 2,138 cases of Salmonella Hadar, affecting 17 regions across Spain (Lenglet, 2005). All cases were epidemiologically and microbiologically linked to a single brand of pre-cooked, vacuum-packed roast chicken. To date, only one death has been recorded as a result of the pathogen. Between April-July, 2005 another European-wide food scare relating to Salmonella Stourbridge occurred in France (n ¼ 18), Sweden (n ¼ 6), Switzerland (n ¼ 3), Germany (n ¼ 9), Austria (n ¼ 5) and the UK (n ¼ 3). The suspected source of the outbreak was linked to French goat’s cheese, resulting in two brands being withdrawn from public sale, a public warning in the national press and notices posted at the point of purchase in all French food retailers (Valliant et al., 2005). Switzerland and Sweden subsequently banned imports of both brands of cheese. A recent investigation into a Salmonella Montevideo outbreak (n ¼ 45) was carried out by the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) in June 2006. Subsequently, the HPA alerted the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which then issued a food alert to Cadbury Schweppes Plc, local authorities and consumers (FSA, 2006a). Seven chocolate brands belonging to Cadbury Schweppes Plc were recalled due to possible contamination of Salmonella Montevideo (Vasager, 2006). The source of the national outbreak was linked to a leakage of waste water in one of Cadbury’s production plants. Despite the company maintaining that levels of contamination were well below their own safety level of 10 cells per 100 g, Pennington (2006) argues that the only safe level of Salmonella in chocolate is zero, particularly given the high levels of consumption amongst children. Experts within the independent Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food also criticised Cadbury’s risk assessment procedures for being over-reliant on end-product testing as opposed to carrying out regular checks throughout the manufacturing process (Humphrey, 2006). Campylobacter is the most commonly reported bacterial pathogen in the EU, with all EU countries (excluding Spain and Sweden) reporting an increase (i.e. þ32 per cent) in 2004 compared to 2003 (EFSA, 2006). Concerns about the completeness of this data are perhaps warranted, as Italy reported only one case of Campylobacteriosis between 1999 and 2004 (EFSA, 2006). Campylobacter jejuni is the most common cause of food poisoning in the UK (Schroder, 2003). Almost 50 per cent of uncooked chicken in England and Wales and just under 75 per cent in Scotland and Northern Ireland was contaminated with Campylobacter jejuni in the mid 1990s (IFST, 1995). In 2004, this European food scares 47 declined to 62 per cent but was still verified as possessing the second highest level (i.e. Ireland possessed the highest level – 77 per cent) of Campylobacter in fresh poultry within the EU (EFSA, 2006). In Spain, Campylobacter organisms are the second most common cause of bacterial foodborne diseases. A key outbreak (n ¼ 81) in Spain was reported in 2003. Although the source of the outbreak was linked to custard, it is believed that cross-contamination occurred with a raw chicken (Jime´nez et al., 2005). Also linked to cross-contamination of raw chicken was a Danish outbreak (n ¼ 79) in 2005 (Mazick et al., 2006). Botulism is a fatal bacterial poison produced by the Bacillus botulinus or Clostridium botulinum organism (Tansey and Worsley, 1999). An outbreak is defined by the occurrence of two or more cases (one or more in France). Notification of the disease varies as notification systems and surveillance differs widely throughout Europe. Several outbreaks have occurred around Europe. During the period between 1988 and 1998, Therre (1999) identified that Italy, France, Spain and Germany were most affected by botulism. For example, in the late 1980’s it occurred in tinned mushrooms and vegetable soup in Italy, shrimps in France and fermented fish in Norway. One of the largest food scares involving botulism occurred in the UK in 1989. Here, 27 people were ill and one person died after consuming hazelnut yoghurt manufactured with cans of hazelnut puree (Brett, 1999). Tests later confirmed that each yoghurt carton comprised between “1750 and 3750 mouse lethal doses” (Pennington, 2003, p. 29). Incidences of botulism have now dramatically reduced. This is mainly due to changes in domestic food practices (i.e. very little home preservation of foods), improved commercial food preservation techniques and industrial food processing. The foodborne transmission of listeriosis possesses a high fatality rate, thus identified as the 2nd leading cause of fatalities from foodborne disease (after Salmonella) in France and 4th in the UK (CEE, 2005). Overall, it is believed that most European countries possess an annual incidence of listeriosis of between 2-10 reported cases per million population per year (CEE, 2005). Those found to be at risk are primarily pregnant women, with the result that government warnings direct pregnant women to avoid paˆte´ and soft-ripened cheeses. Although more commonly found in soft cheese, unpasteurised milk and certain types of seafood, high levels of Listeria monocytogenes in pates have also been associated with the bacterium. In March 1989, imported pates to the UK were screened and high levels of Listeria monocytogenes were identified. Between 1987 and 1989, the number of deaths from listeriosis, rose to 250. France has experienced many outbreaks, one in 1992 killing 63 people (Purvis, 2004) and another in 1999, killing five adults and two newborn babies (De Valk, 2000). Further evidence of the discrepancies in the European-wide surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes is evident by the Netherlands who previously estimated up until 2005 that their annual incidence rate was stable at 2 cases per million population. Having implemented active surveillance of the pathogen in January 2005, they recorded 35 infections in the first half of the year. It is now estimated that their annual incidence rate is closer to 4.3 cases per million population per year (Doorduyn et al., 2006), a figure similar to reported incidences in Denmark (i.e. 4.6 cases per million). E. coli 0157:H7 is a highly virulent organism and impacts most severely on the young and the elderly. Uncooked ground beef has been identified as a common origin of E. coli outbreaks, as is fruits and vegetables that come into contact with cattle faeces BFJ 109,1 48 or with contaminated raw meat (Atkins and Bowler, 2001). Although incidences of E. coli are increasing (Lacey, 1992; Sprenger, 2006), it affects fewer individuals when compared to Salmonella and Campylobacter. Between July 1995 and February 1996, 110 cases of E. coli were reported in Sweden. No deaths occurred but half of all cases were below the age of five (Ziese et al., 1996). Another major E. coli 0157:H7 incident was the 1996 UK-based outbreak in Wishaw, Scotland. Here, a total of 20 people died (mainly aged over 60) and 500 were affected as a result of eating J.M. Barr & Sons’ cooked pies (Pennington, 2003). Eley (1997) identifies Scotland as having the second highest reported rate of E. coli infections in the world (Canada being the highest). Spain also reported a significant outbreak (n ¼ 181), in 2000, affecting 150 schoolchildren and 31 households (Martinez et al., 2001). Although no deaths occurred, the source of infection was linked to sausage from a catering company, which was later closed down. One of the first community-wide outbreaks (n ¼ 26) in France occurred in 2005. Twenty-four of the cases were children aged under nine but no deaths occurred (Valliant, 2005). The source was linked to “Chantegrill” beefburgers, which were later withdrawn from public sale. Similarly, the first general outbreak (n ¼ 25) in Denmark, took place between September 2003 to March 2004. No deaths occurred and the cause was linked to an organic dairy that was later closed down (Jensen et al., 2006). Overall, minimising food-borne microbial pathogens has been a key focus for most European countries, particularly the UK and France where the majority of microbiological-related food scares have occurred. While France continues to permit the sale of unpasteurised milk, the UK Government introduced a partial ban on unpasteurised milk and distributed warning leaflets to consumers via supermarkets about the dangers of consuming raw food (1997). In 1990, 1991 and 1995 respectively they implemented new legislation and Codes of Practice relating to the principles of Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) and temperature control. HACCP principles as a food safety initiative also took place throughout Europe (see EU Directive 93/43). These measures have not only contributed to the reduced number of Listeria cases (Nestle, 2004) but also reflect the growing influence of health on food policy. France being just one example has witnessed a twofold reduction in Listeria-related scares due to such prevention and control measures (De Valk et al., 2005). The US National Research Council concluded also that HACCP was extremely successful in eliminating botulism in canned food products (Nestle, 2004). In 2000, the European Commission updated the original HACCP Directive with a view to minimising food sampling and testing costs (Bernauer and Caduff, 2004). Vos (2000) adds that this move also enables the Commission to shift responsibility for meeting EU Food Law requirements to the food industry, thus moving away from end product testing. Whilst many apportion blame for the rise in foodborne diseases such as Salmonella and Campylobacter to the intensification of agricultural production (Lang and Rayner, 2001; WHO, 2001; Nestle, 2004), the meat industry claims that these pathogens are “natural occurrences” that can best be minimised by improved hygiene practices during manufacturing and processing stages (Harper and Le Beau, 2003). This particular debate manifests itself in terms of the perceived relative risk between on-farm and domestic household contamination and hygiene standards. Thus, it is apparent that a balance is needed between a commodity and consumer-based policy. European food scares 49 Contaminant-related scares Contaminant based “food scares” relating to the use of antibiotics, hormones and pesticides have occurred in a number of food and drink sectors and appear to be of more concern to consumers compared to hygiene standards and food poisoning (Miles et al., 2004). Miscellaneous contaminant related incidents such as the sewage contamination of fresh meat in France in 1999 and the illegal use of growth hormones have unsettled European consumers’ confidence in meat products (Roosen et al., 2003). Indeed, since the mid 1980s the EU-wide prohibition of growth-promoting hormones in beef production and the use of recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), has seen tensions rise between European and International regulatory bodies (e.g. WTO, Codex Alimentarius Commission). Although the rBST dispute is temporarily resolved, the ban on beef hormones continues (Ansell and Vogel, 2005). Currently, the EU is in the process of undertaking a science-based risk assessment relating to the risk of eating beef that has been produced using these hormones (Millstone and van Zwanenberg, 2003). Similarly, in addition to being an environmental and ethical concern (see Frewer, 1999; Verdurme and Viaene, 2003), contaminant residues from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are another example of a safety issue that has caused tensions between the European Community and Interna

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!