.1.

 

 

 

 

,

 

 

 

(TWESIS

'7‘

”E ' ' LIBRARIES

61' ’ ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
eat I“? 2 t? "- (9 EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

HARMONIZING INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY: A CASE
STUDY OF THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION AND THE UNITED
STATES INDENTIFYING MECHANISMS, CONTRAINTS AND
RESOURCES

presented by

CATHY ANN WEIR

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctor of degree in Agriculture and Education
Philosophy Extension

 

 

HAW

Major Professor’s Signature
9 —- (t —- o 9

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

.—.-.-.—.-.-.-.—._.-._.-.-.-.-.---.--.-.-.-.—.

PLACE lN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

77h". , ._ _V , _ ._-

HARMONIZING INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY:
A CASE STUDY OF THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION AND
THE UNITED STATES IDENTIFYING MECHANISMS,

CONTRAINTS AND RESOURCES

By

Cathy Ann Weir

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agriculture and Extension Education

2004

ABSTRACT

HARMONIZING INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY: A CASE

STUDY OF THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION AND THE UNITED

STATES IDENTIFYING MECHANISMS, CONTRAINTS AND
RESOURCES

By
Cathy Ann Weir

Globalization and free trade have opened up boarders, establishing a world
food market, yet countries are at different stages of development. To ensure safe food
for the Asia Pacific region and the United States a harmonized food safety system is
needed This research has developed a fundamental understanding of the key
constraints to a harmonized food system, the mechanisms used to solve food safety
problems, and the resources available in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

Many have identified a need for cOuntries to work together to build capacity
and address food safety problems from a global perspective. The Delphi Method
proved effective to generate interaction from an international panel of participants
who lived in both developed and developing countries, across many time zones, and
with multiple cultural and work related differences. The results from this process will
be useful in future efforts to obtain input from geographically diverse individuals
constricted by resources to meet face-to—face.

As a result of this study the participants identified 15 key constraints to a

harmonized food safety system in the Asia Pacific region and the United States,

elaborated on 23 mechanisms used to solve food safety problems and identified 30

food safety resources. The key findings developed and agreed to by the participants
regarding key constraints include: inadequate knowledge of food safety in developing
countries; difficulty in understanding and complying with international food safety
standards; differences in culture, including food habits, agricultural practices, Islamic
food laws; political and economic concerns before public health; difference in type of
businesses-mechanized vs. small operations; and the US. has a highly sophisticated
infi'astructure, therefore difficult for many countries in the Asia Pacific region to meet
us. requirements.

Comments from the participants provide a roadrnap for developing and
instituting mechanisms required in solving food safety problems in both developed
and developing countries. Those recommendations unanimously agreed to by all of
the participants are: 1) Risk analysis training is needed to ensure a systematic
approach to science-based decision making, 2) Review and adjust inspection systems,
based on science, using methods that are consistent to the international community, 3)
Involve stakeholder participation, include building partnerships, 4) Validated risk
communication research is needed, 5) Utilize relevant expertise fi'om rmiversities,
professional groups, trade groups, and food safety writers when developing food
safety systems, 6) When developing food safety policy, risk assessments are followed
by risk management actions, and 7) There is a need to educate/train all stakeholders
(farmers, consumers, producers, media, and regulators) in a clear and consistent
manner. Findings from this research will assist in developing policy, identify quality

control issues, developing training needs and program implementation.

Copyright by
CATHY ANN WEIR
2004

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Fred Whims for his encouragement and support.
You have taught me well. My committee, Dr. Frank Brewer, Dr. Karim Maredia and
Dr. Dave Krueger, were instrumental in helping to develop my interest and provide
guidance to accomplish this tremendous educational goal. Thank you

There is a network of fiiends, colleagues and family that have been integral to
my peace of mind; without all of you this would not have been possible. Thank you.
I hope that one day I will be able to encourage another as all of you have done for me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ x
Chapter I — Introduction ............................................................ pg. 1
Problem Statement ............................................................ pg. 5
Purpose of this Research ...................................................... pg. 6
Research Objectives ........................................................... pg. 6
Assumptions .................................................................... pg. 6
Limitations ....................................................................... pg. 7
Definitions ...................................................................... pg. 7
Chapter II — Literature Review .................................................... pg. 14
Section 1: Introduction to Harmonizing Food Safety Systems .................... pg. 14
Science-based food safety Research .......................................... pg. 15
Food Safety Culture ............................................................ pg. 16
International Trade Agreement and International Food Laws ............ pg. 16
Industry Standards, HACCP and private grades ............................ pg. 17
Section 2: Food Safety in the US: Mechanisms, Constraints and Resources....pg. 18
Food Safety Culture and Demographics in the United States ............. pg. 19
Science-based food safety research ........................................... pg. 20
US. Food Safety System and International Trade .......................... pg. 22
Industry, HACCP, and Private Grades ....................................... pg. 24
Food Safety Outreach, Education and Training in the United States. . . ..pg. 26
Section 3: Food Safety in Asia Pacific: Mechanisms, Constraints ................ pg. 27
and Resources
Food Safety Culture and Demographics in Asia Pacific ................... pg. 27
Science-based food safety research ........................................... pg. 30
Asia Pacific Food Safety System and International Trade ................. pg. 33
Industry, HACCP, and Private Grades ......................................... pg. 35

Food Safety Training and Education in the Asia Pacific Region... .......pg. 37
Agricultural Biotech Technology Exemplifies the Need to Harmonizepg. 39

Section 4: Delphi Research Method ................................................. pg. 42

Chapter III — Methods .................................................................. pg. 44

Section 1: Introduction .................................................................... pg. 44
The Research Problem ............................................................ pg. 45
The Purpose of This Research .................................................. pg. 45
Research Objectives .............................................................. pg. 45
Section 2: Design .......................................................................... pg. 46
Research Design .................................................................. pg. 46
Selection of Participants ........................................................... pg. 48
Description of the Participants ................................................. pg. 48
Section 3: The Instrument ................................................................ pg. 49
Instrument .......................................................................... pg. 49
Reliability and Validity .......................................................... pg. 49
Round 1 ............................................................................. pg. 51
Round 11 ............................................................................. pg. 51
Round III ........................................................................... pg. 52
Section 4: Data Analysis ................................................................. pg. 52
Chapter IV - Results .................................................................... pg. 54
Introduction ........................................................................ pg. 54
The Four Main Areas ............................................................ pg. 54
Results of Delphi Round I ....................................................... pg. 56
Participants for Round I ......................................................... pg. 57
Round I — Survey Results of Question Regarding Key Constraints ....... pg. 57
Round I — Survey Results of Question Regarding Mechanisms ............ pg. 58
Round 1 — Result of Question Regarding Food Safety Resources ......... pg. 59
Thematic Analysis to Develop Round H of Delphi .......................... pg. 61
Results from Electronic Communication ...................................... pg. 61
Results of Delphi Round II ......................................................... pg. 61
Results of Key Constraints ...................................................... pg. 62
Result of Mechanisms ............................................................ pg. 63
Statistical Analysis to Develop Round [[1 of Delphi ........................ pg. 65
Electronic Communication Comments ........................................ pg. 67
Results of Delphi Round HI ..................................................... pg. 67
List of Key Constraints .......................................................... pg. 68
List of Mechanisms to Address Food Safety Issue ........................... pg. 68

Summary ofKey Findings................. pg 70

Chapter V — Conclusion, Observations and Recommendations. . .. .....pg. 71

Introduction ............................................................................ pg. 71
Discussion of Research Objectives .............................................. pg. 72
For Further Research ............................................................... pg. 80

vii

APPENDICES .............................................................................. pg. 82

APPENDIX A — E—mail to Identify Experts .................................... pg. 83
APPENDIX B - E-mail Instructions - Round I ................................. pg. 85
APPENDIX C — Sample of password protected Web-based survey ....... pg. 88
APPENDIX D - Example of Web-based survey .............................. pg. 90
APPENDIX E — E-rnail Instructions - Round 11 .............................. pg. 92
APPENDD( F - E—mail Instruction - Round III ................................ pg. 95
APPENDIX G — Countries asked to Participate in this Study .............. pg. 97
APPENDIX H - Countries Participating in Round I .......................... pg. 99
APPENDIX I — Round II Comments from Participants. . . . . . ........pg. 101
CONTRAINTS '
APPENDIX J — Round 11 comments from Participants: ................... pg. 107
MECHANISMS
APPENDIX K — Countries Participating in Round II ....................... pg. 112
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................... pg. 114

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 —Surmnary of the World Health Organization food safety constraints in Asia
Pacific Region .......................................................................... pg. 33

Table 2 — Results of Round 1: Participants Identified a List of Key Constraints to a
Harmonized Food Safety System in Asia Pacific and the United States ........ pg. 58

Table 3 - Results of Round 1: Participants Identified Mechanisms Used to Solve Food
Safety Problems in Asia Pacific and the United States ............................. pg. 59

Table 4 — Participants Identified a List of Food Safety Resources in
Round I .................................................................................... pg. 60

Table 5 —Results from Round 11: Participants Indicate Disagree or Agree
with the Statements Distilled from Round ........................................... pg. 63

Table 6 — Results from Round 11: Participants Indicate Disagree or Agree with the
Statements Distilled from Round I ..................................................... pg. 64

Table 7 —Summary of Participant’s Responses Above the 75th percentile ...... pg. 66

Table 8 —Results of Round IH: Participants Responses (Agree or Disagree): “What
are the Key Constraints to a Harmonized Food Safety System in the Asia Pacific
region and the United States?” ........................................................ pg. 68

Table 9 — Results of Round III: Participants Responses (Agree or Disagree): “What
Are the Mechanisms Used to Solve Food Safety Problems?” ..................... pg. 69

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l - Asia Pacific Region .......................................................... pg. 2
Figure 2 — United States Integrated National Food Safety System ................ pg. 22
Figure 3 - Three Categories of Food Safety Resources ............................. pg. 79

Chapter I

Introduction

In recent years, science and technology in food processing has grown by
leaps and bounds. The food industry consists of a large continuously expanding
system For some of the new food products and processes, safety is being
questioned In addition, food recalls and the discovery of emerging foodbome
pathogens are becoming more frequent occurrences. Governments want to make
sure that all food products are safe for their citizens. This is where the question of
food safety comes to the forefi'ont of foreign trade and public health. The primary
purpose in this study was to identify the mechanism, constraints, and resources to
harmonized food safety systems in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.
A further purpose was to determine whether a panel of geographically dispersed
food safety experts could effectively communicate without regards to location,
time zones, cultural background, and, without face to face meetings.

A food system is defined as an array of activities, interrelated components,
working together towards producing and distributing food (Staatz, 2000). Before
the twentieth century, food systenrs were highly localized. Today, food
production, distribution and transportation have become international in scope and
more complex. As a result, harmonizing international foods standards and
regulations makes possible a synchronization of systems which are fine to interact
and operate together. The overall Asia Pacific economy is growing faster than any
other region in the world. To better understand global food safety systems this

study concentrates on corresponding food safety systems in the Asia Pacific region

and the Untied States. The countries included in this region are: Afghanistan,
Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, The
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Asia Pacific Region

 

 

a: :51». ’. , ;. .. ‘
.eseaaea \

a m
Q: r ‘Jdfili »’ "ng {I W?
{T kitsch-rang... .4 .
1‘“ " J.» v‘w‘w é’rwwzm
x74 $321.}! ;.,!fi{$‘

‘unnetma-eaan
\Inteaeee;/_
\.\.\ll t/l

\\t , //

     

 

\
KN;

 

In developed countries like the United States, food safety is generally
accepted due to technical expertise and scientific advances in agriculture. There is
a high regard for the food regulatory systems and trust in national food safety
standards (FDA protects the public health: ranks high in public trust, 2002). So
much so, that average American consumers are confident that the food products
purchased from supermarkets are safe from contamination. However, this is not

true in other countries where there are barriers to the institution of food safety

systems (Vries, 1997). These countries, however, are desirous to ensure food
safety in their respective countries.

Many countries around the world are facing difficulty in meeting
international food safety, quality standards and fair practices in the food trade.
Individual countries are not able to solve food problems alone. There is a need for
regions to develop the capacity to address food safety issues in the local and
international community. Hence, this study was undertaken to identify
mechanisms, constraints and resources from a regional perspective, in a cost
effective way.

Aside from public health concerns, food safety is important to global ‘
econorrries who seek to engage in free trade which requires safe food products.
The presence of contamination or adulteration in food is a major factor affecting
free trade (Crutchfield, Buzby, Frenzen, Allshouse, & Roberts, 2000). Food safety
issues create an enormous social and economic burden on countries and their
health systems. International trade policies such as WTO, GATT and regional
treaties, APEC and NAFTA, are driving changes to ensure the safety of food

Over the past 15 years, the Codex Alimentarius Commission of Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of
the United Nations, has become the recognized international food standard-setting
body (Traill, Bedouin, Gourlie, Husch, & Lustre, 2002). By using scientific
justification, these food safety standards are aimed to protect consumer health

globally. In addition, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the only international

organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations, has referred to
the Codex Alimentarius standards when settling disputes (WTO, 2002).

Along with trade issues, there are emerging food safety concerns such as
genetically engineered food products/ food products fi'om biotechnology (GMOS),
animal feed, pesticide residue, Mad Cow Disease, avian flu and bioterrorism
These concerns are bringing new challenges to the food supply and international
markets. Industry and national governments strive for systems that ensure all food
is safe and wholesome. This has created a growing need for regulators and food
safety experts from all areas of the world to cooperate in developing food
standards and harmonization of food laws. When both developed and developing
countries work together, each benefit from a shared knowledge base to develop
safe, effective food control systems. By providing opportunities for open
connnunication, experts can share their experience and provide an opportunity to
assist others in developing programs that focus on food safety, policy
development, risk analysis and program implementation.

The United States and the nations of the Asia Pacific region are important
trading partners in agricultural products. Most recently, the United States and
China have signed an agreement to establish a mechanism to address food safety
issues and exchange information on laws and regulations. This cooperative
agreement is seen as the first step in harmonizing these two country’s food
systems. The US. Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman said, “China is an
increasingly important nmrket for US. food and agriculture products. Exports to

China have tripled in the past two years” (US-China Food Safety Accord, 2004).

Further, the Asia Pacific region is expected to have a 16-percent population
increase in the next two decades (Coyle, Gilmour, & Armbruster, 2004). This
amount of people and resulting economics will likely have long-term implications
in the region’s food supply. For example, in Japan higher incomes have shified
food consumption patterns; consumers demand convenience foods and perishable
commodities. More than ever people are working in urban settings and food is
eaten away fi'om home. As a result of these changes, more foreign suppliers are
establishing themselves in this region. While in the US, food products from the
Asia Pacific region are on the rise. Both food systems need to ensure safe food for
its consumers and adjust its goods to meet the needs of global market system.

The goal of this study is to identify a list of the key constraints to a
harmonized food safety system, mechanism used to solve food safety issues and
resources available in the Asia Pacific region and the United States. By using
qualitative research techniques, this study seeks to enable interaction among key
international policy makers, regulators, consumers, scientists, university professors
and other food safety experts.
mulem Statement

More and more food products are being exchanged across borders without
food safety system in place. Countries are at different stages of developing food
safety system for the Asia Pacific region and the United States. Without the
benefit of a harmonized food safety system between these countries safe food

supplies are in question.

Lumse of This Research

This research aims to identify and list key constraints to a harmonized food
safety system, the mechanism used to solve food safety problem, and resources
available in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

Rwrch Objectives
Four objectives were identified to give guidance to this research:

1) To utilize the Delphi method, via electronic communication, to enable

interaction among a panel from diverse backgrounds and locations.

2) To identify a list of key constraints to a harmonized food safety system

in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

3) To identify a list of mechanism used in solving food safety issues in

the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

4) To identify resources (websites, publications, and unpublished reports)

available to address food safety issues in the Asia Pacific region and

the United States.

Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in conducting this study:

1) The participants are food safety experts, providing knowledgeable and

candid responses to the questionnaire.

2) The participants represent a cross section of food safety experts in

industry, academics, government and private industry.

3) The food safety issues found may have a broader application in other

regions such as West Afiica and Central America and Eastern Europe.

Limitations

The following limitations were made in conducting this study:
1) This study is limited to the relationship between the Asia Pacific region
and the United States.
2) Only participants residing in the following countries in the Asia Pacific
region and the United States responded Australia, China, India, Indonesia,
Japan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, World Health Organization,
Thailand, and United States.
3) The results are limited to the perceptions of the experts included in this
study.

Definitions

The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this study.
Asia Pacific Region - For this study: the Asia Pacific region, Afghanistan,
Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia,
Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New
Guinea, The Philippines, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and

Vietnam (See Figurel).

Asia Development Bank (ADB) — Promotes regional economic
cooperation. ABD includes the following countries of this study:
Afghanistan, Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa,

Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Vanuatu, and Vietnam

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) - Promotes trade and
investment in the Pacific Rim. APEC includes the following countries of
this study: Afghanistan, Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Vanuatu,

Vietnam and United States.

Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) - A group of countries
which have a bearing on the security of the Asia Pacific. ASEAN includes
the following countries of this study: Afghanistan, Australia, China, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua
New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga,

Vanuatu, Vietnam and United States.

Bioterrorism — The unlawful release of biologic agents or toxins with the
intent to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population to further

political or social objectives.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — established in
1946 to maintain a nationwide system of food-home disease surveillance.

This federal agency estimates actual incidence of foodbome bacterial, viral,

and parasitic illness in the United States and assists other countries with

developing global system.

Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) — International standard setting
body created in 1962 by the Joint FAQ/WHO Food Standards Program of
the United Nations. The purpose is to protect the health of consumers and

to ensure fair trade practice in food trade worldwide.

Developed Countries - The top group of developed countries; mainly
democratic nations also known as high-income countries, the North,
industrial countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000.
Developed countries included in this study are: Australia, Japan, New

Zealand and the United States.

Developing Countries - a term used by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) for the bottom economic group of countries in transition, and
deveIOping. IMF statistics take in 126 developing countries in the world.
Developing countries included in this study are: Afghanistan, China, Fiji,
India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines,

Samoa, Thailand, Tonga, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.

Foodborne illness — Acceptable worldwide is The World Health

Organization (WHO) definition: diseases, usually either infectious or toxic

in nature, caused by agents that enter the body through the ingestion of

food.

Food safety — absence of likelihood of harm under a given set of

conditions.

Food security - United Nations — food security implies that all people at

all times have both physical and economic access to enough food for an

active, healthy life.

Food Security — United States - FDA statutes and regulations
surrounding intentional adulteration with hazardous materials and

economic fraud

Genetically modified foods (GMOs) —- food derived from plants that have

been genetically engineered or modified.

Harmonization — in relation to international food law, refers to the process

in which different states adopt the same laws. Harmonization ofien occurs

as a result of the operation of international treaties.

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System (HACCP) — a system to

identify notable hazards to food HACCP is the most effective approach

10

IIIEI...’ I!

 

 

for controlling hazards and ensuring food safety throughout the entire food
system (farm-to-fork), controlling microbes, chemical and physical

hazards.

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) — established in
1952, is an international treaty whose purpose is to secure a connnon and
effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants

and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control.

Office International des Epizooties (OIE) — established in 1928 to
provide expertise and encourage international solidarity in the control of
animal diseases, and mandated under the WTO SPS Agreement to
safeguard world trade by publishing health standards for international trade

in animals and animal products.

Pacific Island Forum -- established 1971 to promote regional cooperation
in political matters. This forum includes countries in this study: Australia,

Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu.
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement - the application of food

safety and animal and plant health regulations that are part of the treaty

which established the World Trade Organization (WTO).

ll

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) —
established in 1945 to raise the living standards and increase availability of

agricultural products, as a United Nations specialized agency.

United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - responsible for
protecting the public health of US citizens by assuring the safety, efficacy,
and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and
medical devices. This organization publishes a Food Code, which provides
requirements for ensuring food safety at foodservice, retail, and vending

operations. This can be used as a resource worldwide.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — established in
1970 to protect human health and the environment for the American
people. This agency monitors pesticides and the safety of new pesticide

products, and sets residue levels with risk assessments.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - established in 1862,
to protect public health of US. citizens by preventing and responding to
contamination of the food supply throughout the farm-to-table continuum:
including meat inspection; monitoring hormone residues; domestic and

imported meat and poultry; and, related products.

12

World Health Organization (WHO) — established in 1948 to deal with

health matters worldwide; a United Nations specialized agency.

World Bank — established in 1945 to provide economic development

loans; a United Nations Specialized agency.

World Trade Organization (WTO) — established in 1995, to provide a
means to resolve trade conflicts between WTO members and to utilize
negotiations with the goal of further lowering and/ or eliminating tariffs and
other trade barriers. WTO is the only international organization dealing
with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to

ensure that trade flows smoothly, predictably and fieely as possible.

13

Chapter 11

Literature Review

Section 1: Introduction to Harmonizing Food Safety Systems: A

Global Issue

The literature review is divided into four parts. An introduction to the
overall concept of harmonized food system is discussed in Section 1. Food
safety: mechanism, constraints and resources in the United States are discussed in
Section 2. A similar set of t0pics for Asia Pacific is considered in Section 3 and
Section 4 discusses the significance of the research method used in this study.

A network of international standard-setting organizations has been formed
to provide an immensely important source of help to deal with harmonizing food
safety system. International organizations such as the United Nations and the
World Trade Organization (WTO), governments, industries and businesses have
established fair market-oriented trading protocols in which safe food products are
expected (WTO, 2002). Food safety systems are made up of individual parts that
include science-based research, culture, international trade agreements/ food laws,
and industry standards. These parts also operate together as a mechanism to hold
together food safety frameworks. Any constraint to this system of connected parts
may hinder food safety and restrict trade. Constraints that might hinder include:

resources, technical skill, government support, food laws, etc.

14

Scienggbased food safety research
Foodbome pathogens, readily found in all environments, play an important

role in international trade, politics and health. The United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization (F A0) and World Health Organization (WHO) through
the Codex Alimentarius Commission have developed an international approach to
safe food. There is a coordinated effort to attain harmonized food safety standards
for international trade regulations by using science-based standards for food
production, processing, and transport (Proposed draft working principles for risk
analysis, 2001).

In the past century, science has added tremendous insight into food safety
issues. As a result, the US. and other governments have established regulations
based on public exposure to contaminants and risks to these containments in food,
water and the environment. For international food safety system to work fairly, it
is necessary to have a consistent use and application of science-based principles,
accessible to anyone (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000; Starr, 2003).

Further, there is a need to build an interchange of biological risk
assessment data and to develop an international surveillance system for foodbome
illness. Effective food system are essential to implement food safety standards
for global public health. Multilateral coordination and harmonization within food
inspection system and standard setting bodies transcend national boundaries and

facilitate trade (J. Buzby, 2001; Secretariat, 1998; Unnevehr, 2003).

15

Food Safe Culture

Cultural information fi'om different parts of the world related to food
hazards, local custom and agricultural practices is needed to establish
international food safety standards. Ideally, the fi'amework of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission takes into account all available data throughout the food
chain, including the food related traditions and practices of developed and
developing countries (Traill et al., 2002).

The challenge in assessing international health hazards fi'om chemicals and
microorganism is the lack of scientific data (Food-borne disease: a focus for
health education, 2000). Records, laboratories and surveillance system may not
exist because food contamination is not always recognized as a priority by national
governments. Most information related to food safety in developing countries is
about malnutrition and infant diarrhea This data has become an important
indicator of contaminated food and drinking water. As a result, the World Health
Organization (WHO) concludes that “illness due to contaminated food is perhaps
the most widespread health problem in the contemporary world and an important

cause of reduced economic productivity” (WHO, 1984).

International Trade Agreement and International Food Laws
In the past twenty years trade agreements such as, GATT/WHO, NAFTA

and SPS/TBT, have brought countries together by removing restrictive tariffs and

technical barriers to trade. These trade agreements have established international

l6

laws that are based on predictability, transparency and fairness so that conducting
business is possrhle. (Burfisher & Zahniser, 2003).

The functions of international food laws are to protect the public health,
inform consumers, assure fair trade practices and protect the environment
(Hegarty, 2003). Countries need to understand international food laws and
regulations so they may meet the legal requirements and expand economically.

Many developing countries are currently in the process of modifying or
implementing food safety guidelines and regulations to meet international and
industry requirements. In 1999, 70 percent of the member countries of WTO were
developing countries. In order for developing countries to remain conrpetitive in
the global market place they need to establish and implement food safety laws and
regulations. However, limited resources are causing governments to weigh
decisions that incur financial costs to impose food regulations and have access to
the foreign market (Implementation of initiatives to manage food safety, 2000;

Trail] et al., 2002; wro, 2001).

Indm Standafl, HACCP and private gndes

In addition to international trade agreements, industry is increasing food
standards beyond international regulations. Food industries, such as large
multinational grocery stores and food companies, are continuously seeking ways to
exceed quality concerns for their consumers. To increase their market share,

producers have established private standards and grades that are related to quality

17

standards. These are a system of grades higher than national and international
food safety regulations/requirements.

Multinational food producers and supermarket chains have implemented
private standards and quality assurance programs aimed to improve food supply
and customer base, whether domestic or foreign (Busch, 1997). Srmll firms are
being forced to comply with these food standards and may have problem staying
in business. “To meet consumers expectations of safer food and maintain product
loyalty, industry has established production practices beyond regulations and
standards” (Mather, 2001).

The Codex Alimentarius mechanism is working toward safe food and fair-
trade, but may be Significantly affect by the controls of private standards. As a
result, private standards my be a constraint on developing countries ability to
have market access. For developing countries to implement private standards they

need help from developed countries (Wilhelm, 2003; WTO, 2001).

Section 2: Food Safety in the United States: Mechanisms,

Constraints and Resources

“Currently, there are more than 1 3 0 countries around the world that provide food
to US. consumers ” —- Food Safety Begins on the Farm: A Grower's Guide

(Rangarajan, Bihn, Gravani, Scott, & Pritts, 1999)

18

Food Safe_ty Cain; and Demggraphies in the United States
The United States is a melting pot of people who bring a variety of food

and culture with them Newly migrated families have continuously added
diversity to America’s favorite food choices. Because there is an abundance in
economic resources and consumers willing to try new foods, the US. imports a
wide variety of agricultural goods year round (J. Buzby, 2001; Crutchfield et al.,
2000)

As a person’s income rises, they are more willing to pay for food that is
safer, fresher and of higher quality (Regmi, 2001). However, all the food we
consume must be produced, shipped, processed, packaged, stored and prepared.
Along the way--fi'om farm to fork--there are many opportunities for
contamination. Though food safety is a high priority for people in the United
States, it is estimated that up to 76 million foodborne illness occur each year
costing between 51—10 billion a year and causing approximately 5,000 foodbome
illness related deaths per year (Mead, 1999). As a result, the US. spends a
tremendous amount of resources on food safety, food processing, new teclmology,
and protecting food supplies (Gerald & Perkin, 2003; Medeiros, Hillers, &
Kendall, 2001; Siegrist, 2000).

Though most people are only Slightly affected by foodbome hazards, there
are certain groups of people who could have complications for the duration of their
lives. Therefore, in the United States food safety measures are aimed at those
most sensitive to food borne pathogens. This includes pregnant women, young

children, elderly persons and pe0ple with deficient immune system. Statistics

19

have shown that almost one-third of all foodbome illnesses in the United States
occur in children less than 10 years old (J. C. Buzby, 2001). More research is
needed to address food safety risks and measures to protect special populations (J.

C. Buzby, 2001)

Science-based food safety research
The United Nations Food and Agricultmal Organization (FAO) and World

Health Organization (WHO) through the Codex Alimentarius Commission have
developed an international approach to safe food. There is a coordinated effort to
attain harmonized food safety standards for international trade regulations by using
science-based standards for food production, processing, and transport (Proposed
draft working principles for risk analysis, 2001).

Risk analysis weighs relevant risk factors, using science—based practices.
In the past century, science has added insight into food safety issues. As a result,
governments are asked to regulate public exposure to contaminants/risks in food,
water and the environment. For international food safety system to work fairly, it
is necessary to have consistent application, using science-based principles and
transparency of the results.

At some time or another, most of the US. population has eaten
contaminated food and experienced a short bout of gastrointestinal problem.
Most foods will naturally contain organism that might cause illness unless the
organism are washed ofi’ the food, hands, and utensils, killed during cooking, or

kept from growing by keeping the food hot or cold. Because of this, biological,

20

chemical and physical hazards are a constant threat to any food supply (Forsythe,
2000)

Hazards and conditions that contaminate food are classified as: chemical
(cleaning agents, toxins, allergens), biological (bacteria, viruses, parasites), and
physical (bone, glass, metal) (Fox & Hackney, 2003). Foodbome agents can be
added to food or found naturally. Because not all food hazards can be completely
removed fi‘om food, scientific research (risk assessment) establishes maximum
limits (ML) and regulating agencies (risk managers) monitor the industry (Byrd &
Cothem, 2000).

Examples of food hazards include, E. coli 0157:H7, first found in 1982
after people ate hamburgers from a fast-food chain, and, Cyclospora, a pathogen
found in Guatemalan raspberries in 1996 (Tauxe, 1998). More recently, Mad Cow
disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which is now linked to
human illness, was discovered in the United Kingdom’s cattle herds (Powell &
Leiss, 1997). Also, avian flu virus has led to precautions in Japan and other
countries that banned chicken imports regardless of the relationship to human
illness (2004).

Because global food trade is expanding there is a potential for the spread of
new and emerging pathogens. Food outbreaks in one country can be a disaster for

another country if the tainted food is traced back to another region of the world.

21

US Food Saf em d International Trade

In the US, more than 12 federal agencies are given resources and
legislative authority to ensure safe food Armed with over 100 years of food laws
this integrated mechanism of national food safety system in the US. includes
agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). See Figure 2 for the arrangement of connected parts.

Figure 2. United States Integrated National Food Safety System

 

Integrated National Food Safety System

 

 

~Roles 8- Responsibilities
-Communication State
Federal -Laboratory Coordination & Improvement Loca|

~0utbrealeracebacks m .
-National Uniform Criteria Tnbal
-lnformation Sharing 8. Data Collection

 

 

 

science a research
-food a. label standards
'risk assessment
straining to states
~prog ram evaluation
«imports

additive approvals
.certifieation
laboratory standards

 

oinspections

ofoodbome illness investigations
. consumer complaints

ofood sampling 8. analysis

. compliance 8. enforcement

 

 

Michigan Department of Agriculture, 2004

Many countries such as the United States have their own set of food laws
and regulations that account for their own perception of risk and resources.
Climate, agricultural production, economic, political, social, cultural and religious

difierences are all related to food safety. While national policies are rapidly

22

changing to meet the demands of science, there is still a lack of available means
for many countries to meet food safety standards within US. acceptable levels of
risks (Burfisher & Zahniser, 2003).

International free trade agreements have reduced barriers to allow for the
US. to expand its markets. In the 2003, nearly 60 billion dollars in agricultural
export supported 750,000 jobs, one-third of those in rural communities. As a
result, the US. experienced sales of over $1 billion per week to more than 100
countries. In the US. international trade in agriculture production equals one of
every three cropland acres (Boehm, 2004).

The United States is a member of The World Trade Organization (WTO).
This organized membership of cormtries rule trade between nations at a global or
near-global level. The basic principles of the WTO are: I) trade without
discrimination, and, 2) removal of trade barriers (WTO, 2002). A separate
agreement on basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards is
called the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement (SPS). An irrrportant
aspect of the SPS agreement is the right of all WTO member countries to establish
their own sanitary measures for the protection of health and life of their human,
animal and plant populations (Secretariat, 1998). For example, established
regulations allow the USDA animal and plant health unit to inspect and prevent the
entry of exotic plant and animal pests and diseases (Strongin, 2002).

International trade and food standard setting may constrict trade because
food regulations differ among countries (Henson, 2003; Mills & Hilt, 2003; Sen,

2004; Yuen, 2004). At times, politics is accused of setting standards as an effort to

23

camouflage agricultural protectionist practices of member countries (Jackson,
2001). Without harmonization of procedures and standards, trading partners may
be restricted to access food markets and sell their agricultural exports (Crutchfield
et al., 2000). Food safety outbreaks and the presence of contamination or
adulterated food affect people everywhere. A survey on barriers to US. trade
indicate that food safety accounts for a fourth of all trade disputes and half of
export revenue losses (Foreign agriculture trade of the US, 2001). Because of
these serious economic consequences, the US. supports the idea of an

international harmonized food safety system

Industg, HACCP, and Private Grades
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) is a preventative

science-based system developed by industry to assure safe food production. The
scope of HACCP is comprehensive-from farm to fork. Its purpose is to prevent,
reduce or minimize risks associated with foods and provide a legal framework to
produce food safely (Chesworth, 1997). The HACCP system is an example of
regulators and industry working together to reduce foodborne illness by applying
science-based measures (Hulebak & Schlosser, 2002).

In the US, regulations state that juice, meat and poultry, and seafood
industries are required to follow HACCP principles. Most US. firms have an
incentive to follow HACCP procedures. HACCP principles are recognized world—
wide for preventing food safety problem. As many food manufacturers and

industry representatives are anxious to avoid lawsuits, lose their reputation and

24

customer loyalty, many include HACCP plans even when it is not required In
practice, this system identifies all possible hazardous or contamination points and
then applies appropriate controls (Farber & Todd, 2000). To be an effective
mechanism for safe food, industry must provide detailed documentation to identify
the corrective actions, original source of product, and verify that the controls are
working.

Intentional food contamination, known in the US. as bioterrorism, came to
light as a result of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Before this, US. food
safety concerns centered on accidental and natural food contamination. Recent
bioterrorism legislation, to mke the US. food supply even safer, resulted in
giving more authority and financial resources to FDA. Congress allocated a
portion of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from
and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (P.L. 107-39) providing
$40 billion to “improve homeland security through food safety enhancements”
(Strongin, 2002). Included in this new legislation is a measure to improve
surveillance and rapid response to any suspected foodbome illness. Along with
improved surveillance activities, all foreign and domestic food facilities require a
mechanism for traceability, prior notification of imported food shipments and
extensive record keeping to trace back original source of food (Meadows, 2004).
As a result, scientific research and investigation in the US. is Shifting resources to

focus on intentional contamination rather than accidental contamination.

25

Food Safgty Outreach, Educatign and Training in the United States
In the United States, years of food safety research have produced a wealth

of information. In the US, public health campaigns by the regulatory agencies
(FDA, USDA, EPA, etc.) encourage proper food handling, sanitation and storage
and other related food safety messages. By law, federal agencies that regulate
food are responsrble for communicating strategies that are effective in reducing
foodbome risks. The regulations made by these agencies have a tremendous
impact on an individual’s health, industries and economy. As a result, the US.
seeks to include the public's help in the rule-making process. In addition, public
input is considered when the regulators determine a final rule (Making Your Voice
Heard at FDA: How to Comment on Proposed Regulations and Submit Petitions,
2003)

There are several US. food safety linkages, various institutions and food
safety experts that develop training, education programs and outreach activities.
Many food safety programs in the US. interact with networks around the world.
Communicating food safety messages are designed. to heighten public awareness
and motivate people to take action. People are very concerned with a safe food
supply, but do not always know what to do. Science can explore safe food
solutions; however, ultimately consumers are the ones to adopt new behaviors.
More information is needed so that science and regulators can communicate
relevant decisions about foodbome risks and informing those most affected
(Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996). To be the most effective, food

safety messages must consider culture-specific concepts when communicating

26

their message. Preparing effective messages for different segments of the
population requires determining what recipients think, what is relevant, and what
their lifestyle and living conditions are like. More research is needed to identify
what is important within cultural groups and their understanding of food safety
messages (Weir, 2002). In addition, more research is also needed to create action
strategies that empower individuals to reduce foodbome risks (Huerta & Macario,

1999; Lundgren & McMakin, 1998).

Section 3: Food Safety in Asia Pacific: Mechanism, Constraints

and Resources

“No region in the world holds greater promise for US. food and agricultural
trade than Asia Pacific ” — National Policy Association (Breth, Auerbach, & Benz,

1999)

Food Safety Culture and Demographics in Asia Pacific

Asia, including part of the Pacific Rim, is the world’s largest continent.
This region ranges from the arctic Siberia, to deserts of South and Central Asia
Pacific and the tropics of Southeast Asia Pacific. While there is an abundance of
natural resources (e.g., forests, agricultural land, minerals, and petroleum), they are
not available to everyone. The Asia Pacific region includes almost half the people
of the world and home to more than 500 million people. Included in this region

are over 10 percent or 60 million people in the middle-to—upper-income group

27

(Richardson, 2003). The per capita income and living standards of this region
ranges fiom amongst the highest in the world, to some of the lowest. As a result of
its growing population and rising upper-income consumers, food safety issues are
a growing concern (Coyle et al., 2004; Richardson, 2003; Zoellick, 2004).

One of the biggest trends for the Asia Pacific region is greater expectations
for cleanliness. For the first time, food safety issues, public health and the right to
access clean water and food are being discussed. Among some of the food safety
concerns in this region are increased uses of agricultural pesticides and chemicals
used in food processing (Khanum, 2001). However, research Shows that when it
comes to food safety, it is unsure whether consumers in this region have a
willingness-to-pay for safe food and food safety system (Huang, Kan, & Fu,
1999)

The new demographics in this region include growing urban settings that
are surpassing rural agricultural populations. New urban dwellers are not always
able to feed themselves as before. Therefore, eating patterns have changed in the
Asia Pacific region with less focus on traditional foodstuffs and more on processed
goods. This is creating an increased demand for more meat consumption, which
results in grain being used to feed livestock rather than people. It is clear that
urbanization is altering food options for citizens of developing countries in this
region (Asian Development Outlook 2003, 2003; Blij & Murphy, 2004; Coyle et
al., 2004). There is an urgent need to help improve food system and
infrastructure to better provide safe food supplies to the poor. Not having enough

food to eat is an ongoing problem in this region and one that unfortunately has no

28

“magic bullet" to achieve food security (Novartis, 1999). The Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (F A0) defines food security as “a
state of affairs when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences
for an active and healthy life” (Inni, 2004) . By establishing quality agricultural
practices and increased yearly production economical development in this region
is possible.

Differences in agricultural practices exist between most of the Asia Pacific
region and the United States. For example, in Asia the majority of wage-earning
women plays a vital role in food production yet do not own any land or have a say
in production practices. A significant amount of food production is fiequently
“backbreaking hand-cultivation of staples dominated by women” (Blij & Murphy,
2004). Solutions to solving international food safety problem are linked to
poverty and the role of women in developing countries (Breth et al., 1999).
Policymakers will require a structure that includes access for women to education,
adequate health care, sanitation, and economic opportunities. Traditional food
processing in the Asia Pacific region serves an important economic firnction,
therefore, role of women will need to be considered in the whole food system
(Unnevehr, 2003).

This area of the world has a tremendous cultural diversity which includes
the world’s major religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and
Buddhism In this region of the world, religious affiliations have a huge impact on

food choices. For instance, Muslims are not allowed to consume pork. Buddhists

29

do not eat beef and a Hindu may eat meat but not beef. Some Hindus object to
having their food handled by members of different castes. For Muslim consumers,
beef and poultry products must be certified as Halal1 and originate fiom
slaughterhouses that follow Islamic slaughter practices. These facilities must be
inspected and approved by religious authorities. If these products are not certified

Halal, Muslim consumers will not buy them (Fleck, 1997).

Science-hm food safety reseafl
Food safety risks in the Asia Pacific region vary from the US. due to

differences in technology, access to refiigeration, food production practices,
cultural differences, and climatic differences (J. Buzby, 2001). International
cooperation is necessary to share risk analysis, microbial data and other food
related information during disease outbreaks. Because trade is so closely related to
food safety issues, there can be a significant impact on regional food supplies if
negatively affected This was seen in the wake of the recent avian influenza
outbreak in Asia , Hong Kong and other countries have banned poultry imports
fi‘om South Korea, Vietnam, Jaqran, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, Laos and China
(2004)

More research is needed in this region to help identify food safety issues
and specific value system and cultural practices. Currently, many alternative

views by consumers, scientists, industry and government regarding what is food

 

' Halal is an Arabic word meaning lawfirl or permitted. In relation to food products these laws
include rules for slaughter, no swine/pork, alcohol, blood products, etc., (IFANCA).

30

safety exist in this region. Representatives have reported to international
organizations that science may devalue tradition and culture when considering
food safety (Committee, 2001; Ten Eyck, 2000). Currently the United Nations
reports that limited information is available about regional health in the Asia
Pacific (Food Safety, 2003).

Surveillance information and data collection is necessary to identify the
food safety needs and to set priority in this corrrplex setting. Therefore, it is
necessary to gain more information on biologically and chemically contaminated
food in this region. F oodborne hazards and high-risk foods that result in
illness/disease are usually not known. Without systermtic foodbome surveillance
activities, including epidemiological studies, it is difficult to improve the safety of
the food supply and reduce foodbome diseases. The US. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) is assisting in developing a standardized health
information system for the United Nations to be used in this region.

Microbial diseases are common because in many parts of the region, water
is usually not potable and open sewers are connnon. Poverty, poor sanitation, and
superstition still contribute to a high infant mortality rate. Pollution and living
conditions in large crowded urban settings have resulted in serious health hazards
(Bjorkrnan, 1985). In this region, there is a rise in the availability of street foods
(vendor food, fast food) which corresponds to the increase in consumer disposable
income. However, there are few sanitary controls over preparation. Food is
prepared, distributed and displayed without any food safety standards. Bacterial

contamination is connan because food stalls are without refrigeration and lack

31

proper cooking facilities. Water and sanitary services are not always available;
therefore hand washing almost never occurs. Without sanitation, customers run
the risk of vendors passing food borne pathogens along (Garin, 2002).

As with microbial pathogens, chemical hazards are also a major problem in
the Asia Pacific region. This is a result of unregulated pesticide residue and food
additives. There is a lack of trained personnel and nationally Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) plans for pesticide use (Singh, Singh, & Rao, 2003). This has
resulted in a significant number of vegetables, firms, and teas that have exceeded
minimum residue limits and are unfit for human consumption. Not only is there a
lack of knowledge and guidance regarding pesticide risk and food additive
regulations, there is widespread use of forbidden products and formulations
(Chiang, Kusnawiria, & Sawangduarn, 2002).

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been working towards the
improvement of food safety since its inception. They have become a source of
support and resources to this region. In 2000, WHO, during the Fifty-third World
Health Assembly, affirmed the importance of food safety, and identified key
actions to achieve safe food. As a result there is a published report listing this

region’s key constraints to improved food safety systems (Table 1).

32

Table l: Summa of the Wor Health 0 tion F af

Constraing in Asia Pgflc

World Health Olga-inflows List of Key Constraints to Safe Food in

 

the Asia Pacific region (2000)

 

 

Lack of laws that address food safety

Lack of one authority with responsibility to food safety

Lack of technical expertise to articulate written policy on food
safety

Lack of government and consumer awareness to national food
safety problem

Lack of food control system such as inspection methods and
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans

Lack of consumer education

Lack of resources, e.g., trained experts, laboratories, sufficient data

related to foodbome diseases, trends, microbiological, etc.

 

Asia Pacific Fog Safety System and Intpmational Trade

Economic growth and consumers with increased personal wealth have

linked the Asia Pacific region with the US. by offering a wide range of foods

exchanged between countries. In 2000, it was estimated that more than $900

million of US. foods were sold in retail food outlets in the Asia Pacific region

33

 

(Foreign agriculture trade of the US, 2001). International trade in the Asia
Pacific region in not only limited to trade with the United States. Between 1990
and 2001 , trade between the Peoples Republic of China and the rest of the world
more than tripled, and trade between Southeast Asia and the rest of the world
nearly doubled (Asian Development Outlook 2003, 2003). This region currently
accounts for approximately US$53 billion in US. direct investment, is the third
largest overseas market for US. exports, and two—way Association of Southeast
Asia Nations (ASEAN) - US. trade totaled US$120 billion in 2001 (Hutagalung,
2003). It is clear that the world desires goods fi'om this region more than ever. A
recent international restaurant trade magazine stated, “Asia Pacific cuisine is hot
and luckily lowering tariffs and other trade barriers has made lemon grass,
galangal, and fish sauce available to the rest of the world” (Gould, 2000).
However, for the most part the Asia Pacific region’s food systems, controls
and policies are not yet firlly developed and are unable to address rapidly
expanding markets, technologies, and emerging pathogens (Asian Development
Outlook 2003, 2003). Developed and developing countries are not at the same
economic and technical level. Street vendor foods are an example of outdated
systerm. Without laws, food inspections are unable to control food processing and
marketing activity (Third Asian Conference on food safety and nutrition, 2000).
In the past, domestic factors such as food security, droughts, floods and
military tension often overshadowed food safety concerns. This resulted in many
countries of the region without a clear written food policy on food safety, leaving

many people in this region without access to clean water and safe wholesome food

34

(Traill et al., 2002). When WHO identified key constraints of the Asia Pacific in
achieving a safe food supply they stated that “above all, there is a tremendous need
for food safety laws and regulations to build a solid framework in this region” (10-
point regional strategy for food safety in the south-east Asia region, 2002).

Generally this region has under-staffed food inspection units and under-
resourced food safety laboratory facilities and limited food regulation or
integration of HACCP systems (Implementation of initiatives to manage food
safety, 2000). International organizations have recognized that it is necessary to
help developing countries of Asia Pacific to establish a foundational food safety
framework for long lasting positive advances. The region has shown advances
overall, however, governments still lack an understanding of what competitiveness
- means and how food safety fits in the development process (Asian Development

Outlook 2003 , 2003).

Indum, HACCP, and Privatg Grades
Competitive domestic markets and collaborative partnerships have helped

to provide economic growth to the Asia Pacific region. However, for some
countries of the region, WTO agreements such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary
(SPS) measures and intellectual property protection measures do not adequately
reflect their interests (Sen, 2004). Many developing countries feel that they have
not been considered when these agreements are rmde. More recently, food
standards created by Codex Alimentarius have been criticized for putting too much

focus on science-setting agendas from the food industry. There are complaints that

35

specifications include only developed countries’ practices and not ethnic foods and
cultural practices in developing countries. As a result, there have been recent
efforts to include public participation as a means to “break through assumptions
and gives voice to valuable cultural-knowledge” (Reisner, 1992).

Yet, private sector links between developing country suppliers and buyers
are increasingly the driving force in quality standards. Global supermarkets, food
service operators and processors, are changing food safety rules. Southeast Asia
Pacific has recemly received U.S. technical assistance to “offer a step-by-step
pathway to deeper trade and economic relationships with the United States via the
ASEAN Initiative” and to strengthen WTO’s global rules-based system
(Hutagalung, 2003). This initiative is aimed at establishing linkages with
American businesses, and to help countries in the region meet US. food safety and
other private standards (Zoellick, 2004).

The relationship between multinational food companies such as
McDonald's and its Indian suppliers is bringing access to the latest in food
technology and exposure to advanced agricultural practices. As a result, there are
a growing number of local suppliers operating with HACCP principles (Vital Links
in our Cold Chain, 2002). International, regional and national resources are being
poured into this area to address food safety and agricultural trade and develop
competitive market place standards. As an example, the Pacific Island Countries
are a regional forum supported by FAQ to provide US $4.5 million for

development of food industries that are able to trade internationally. This initiative

36

and similar ones are contributing to globalization and rapidly changing trading

regimes in this region ("Sub-regional representative for the Pacific,” 2003).

Food Safety Training and Eduggtion in Asia Pacific Rggjon

Capacity building in the Asia Pacific region is essential to help increase
productivity of agriculture and raise farmers' incomes (Asian Development
Outlook 2003, 2003). For this part of the world to benefit from global markets in
food and to represent their interest in international organizations, they must build
capacity in science—based food safety systems (Breth et al., 1999; Zoellick, 2004).
Representation at standard setting committee meetings of the Codex Alimentarius
is often disproportionate. More voice is given to those who regularly attend, such
as governments and industry who can afferd to send experts. After a careful
review of this criticism, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has begun to
consider financial assistance and other strategies to include a broader group of
stakeholders in their international food standard-setting process (Traill et al.,
2002)

The Codex Alimentarius Cormnission has made available funds to
strengthen food safety capacity building efforts. Building skills and capacity of
farmers and producers is the only way a country will remain competitive and take
advantage of globalization (Codex Trust Fund, 2003). By providing financial
assistance, Codex envisions a structured, efficient, regional food safety system that
is able to meet international standards. These steps in training and education are

aimed at increasing input from consumers in developing countries and to remove

37

constraints to traditional production methods science has not considered in the
past.

Globally, countries can assist one another and support appropriate
capacity-building elements such as providing technical assistance, laboratories,
communication, financial management, human resource development, legal
structure, training workshops and conferences.

The Asia Pacific region and the United States share many interests in food
safety. By working together through multilateral trade agreements such as the
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), harmonized food safety systems,
policy development, risk analysis and program implementation are possrble (About
APE C, 2003). Developed countries such as the US. have an opportunity to share
food safety experiences and transfer the know-how to help train scientists in food
safety risk assessment and risk management techniques (International technical
guidelines for safety in biotechnology, 1995). This type of collaborative education
and training effort is currently shaping the development of a global foodbome
disease surveillance network, Global Salm—Surv, a Salmonella surveillance
network that was initiated in January 2000.

Because developing countries have faced problems in exporting food
products and have difficulty meeting the standards of importing countries, The
World Bank supports education and training initiatives. The World Bank seeks to
help this region of the world to build capacity as a “means investment in learning

and knowledge-sharing,” while it “strengthens institutions and gives individuals

38

the skills they need to problem solve, innovate, educate and harness productive

potential of societies” (Wilhelm, 2003).

Agicultural Biotechnology Technology Exemplifies the Need to Harmogig‘g
Although national and international organizations recognize the benefits of

agricultural biotechnology, not everyone supports its uses. There has been
extensive media reporting about the potential risks of biotechnology and
genetically modified food (GMs). Social, ethical, environmental and economic
reports surround this issue. Those who support organic farming are concerned
about cross-contamination. Some public opinion expresses fear of future health
hazards claiming a lack of scientific evidence. Most frequently, this new
technology has become an integral part of multilateral trade disputes. There have
been many open discussions and public hearings regarding this issue which has
brought to light criticism pertaining to research techniques and public perception
of risks associated with GM foods (Frewer, Miles, & Marsh, 2002; Rarnpton &
Stauber, 2001; Siegrist, 2000).

Applications of agricultural biotechnology in the US. have been very
successful. Key health officials, scientific and academic organizations have been
quick to support the “tremendous benefits” to consumers (Geller, Bernhardt, &
Holtzman, 2002; Struble & Aornari, 2003). The US. National Academy of
Science reports, “crops modified by molecular and cellular methods should pose
risks no different from those modified by classic genetic methods for similar

traits” (Bren, 2003). The US. experience offers other countries an alternative to

39

solving some of their agricultural problems. For example, GM technology has the
potential to address food security (lack of food) and pest management problems in
developing countries. International regulatory problems, food safety/biosafety
concerns, have slowed down cultivation of genetically modified foods, affected
consumer acceptance and limited government approvals. At this point developing
countries are challenged to build regulatory capacity and public awareness that is
essential to GM approval (Cohen, Quemada, & Frederick, 2003).

In the US, regulation of biotechnology falls under the jurisdiction of three
federal agencies (FDA, USDA, and EPA). Each agency determines a certain
aspect of the use and application of each product. This intensive regulatory
process evaluates the product and process. For example, FDA applies science-
based risk assessment to all foods regardless of those derived from new plant
varieties of conventional breeding or genetic biotechnology. This concept is
referred to by the FDA as substantial equivalence, meaning science-based risk
assessment for genetic products has proved equivalent to conventional foods. If
any new food product introduces substances that change the make of the final
product, such as a new formulation of vitamins, FDA will stipulate additional
safety studies.

“There is little doubt that biotechnology will change where and how our
food is produced” (Shand, 1994). Many countries are moving forward and
participating in international discussions to harmonize technology and promote
science-based food safety/biosafety protocols. The US. government has a policy

to aid developing countries with agricultural biotechnology as a part of the

40

solution to feed expanding populations. However, these highly sophisticated
techniques must be made affordable to help ensure the widest possible benefits for
the public good (Cook, 1994). Former US. President Jimmy Carter stated, “If
biotechnology is regulated unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing
countries” (Carter, 1998).

This new technology may be especially beneficial to the Asia Pacific
region as it looks to find new ways to feed grong populations (Borlaug, 2001).
Rice is the basic food crop, important to food security and highly politicized. The
production of this important crop accounts for more than 80 percent of calories
consumed in this portion of the world. The Rice Biotechnology Network
sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation has been instrumental in developing I
genetically modified rice. This program has also created applications to produce
improved rice varieties. At the same time, it trains scientists to use the techniques
(Agricultural biotechnology, poverty reduction, and food security, 2001). As a
result of this regional research, one of the first developing countries to address the
potential risk of agricultural biotechnology was The Philippines. In 1990, The
Philippines governmental legislative body established biosafety guidelines and a
process that included public representatives. Public outcry for commercial use of
genetically modified has so far prevented the Philippines from moving forward
(Aemi, 2002).

Most of the Asia Pacific region supports agricultural biotechnology
products and has begun to build capacity in biosafety and food safety. For

example, Singapore strongly supports the development of biotechnology along

41

with Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Viet
Nam, all who are seeking researchers who will apply biotechnology to traditional
foods such as fruits and export commodities such as shrimp. The World Bank is
helping Indonesia to activate agricultural biotechnology prograrm and in the
Peoples Republic of China, approximately 50 genetically modified plant varieties

have been approved for environmental release, or small-scale field testing.

Section 4: Delphi Research Method

The main objective of this section is to describe the Delphi method and its
purpose and effectiveness as the selected research method for this study. The -
research method used in Golzynski’s research in which e—mail was used to elicit a
body of knowledge from food experts established precedent for using Delphi with
this subject matter (Golzynski, 2001). In addition, the Delphi method is
particularly suitable in providing a means to gain knowledge from experience in
professional fields to solve problems and aid in develOping training programs
(Reuber, Dyke, & Fischer, 1990).

In order to better understanding global food safety issues, it has been
recognized that experts are necessary in solving problems through knowledge
sharing and helping to sort out the issues (Jarratt & Mahaffie, 2002; McCampbell
& Helmer, 1993). Considering the nature of particular problems in food safety, it
is natural to ask experts their understanding and experience. A feature of the
Delphi Method is to form groups related to a common issue and elicit ideas on

how to solve a problem. Experts can be used to develop fundamental

42

understanding of the impacts on globalization and how harmonize regulations
effect their food safety systems. In addition, feedback of this type may stimulate
thoughts not considered before.

In the recent past, the Delphi method was used to establish interaction
between food safety experts in the US, and identify consumer food handling
behaviors for food safety education (L. C. Medeiros, P. Kendall, V. Hillers, G.
Chen, & S. DiMascola, 2001). Their study provided effective results to address
US. food safety training issues. In addition, participants were geographically
dispersed individuals, living in different time zones. The Delphi proved to be cost
effective and capable of obtaining a quick response to emerging issues.

Food safety is a complex and evolving global issue because of the impacts
from globalization, free trade, food production, culture, private standards and
Codex Alimentarius. To address these issues there is a urgent need for food safety
experts to share information and together design strategies that harmonize food
safety systems. The Delphi method creates such a forum and allows for diversity
of all points of view. Issues such as basic food safety education, scientific risk
analysis, and disease surveillance need to be brought to the light, approached
collaboratively and together, develop national, regional and international food
safety systems. The Delphi method offers a research tool for food experts from
different entities to interact and plot their course. The participants from this type
of research method can include scientist, industry, academia, consumers and

government to partake in the design and delivery of food safety systerm.

43

Chapter III

Methods

Section 1: Introduction

Countries around the world are seeking ways to ensure safe food supplies
for their citizens. For our study, food safety issues in each country can be
discussed in relation to an overall objective to make food safe worldwide. The
Delphi method is able bring together representatives from developed and
developing countries regardless of time zones, work patterns, culture, language
and geographic location . By using a set of guidelines for electronic
communication this research method is able to enable interaction to reach mutual
understanding and cooperation (Dillman, 2000; Linstone & Turoff, 1975). This
research method is a qualitative approach, recognized as an excellent tool for
gaining input from experts (R. Dalkey & Helmet, 1963; Roth & Wood, 1990). As
a result, food safety experts are able to bring to the surface a comprehensive list of
important domain concepts and factors such as constraints, mechanisms and food
safety resources (Baldwin-Morgan & Amelia, 1993).

This research was motivated by interaction among participants who have
attended an international food safety short comse and senior decision makers in the
global community. Annually, Michigan State University holds an international short
course, in collaboration with developing cormtries, regulators, and industry. The
purpose is to address food safety policy development, risk analysis and program

implementation of good manufacturing practices for both private and public

44

participants. The international participants have requested further insight into food
safety mechanism, constraints and resources in their geographic regions. They are
seeking more information that could lead to developing appropriate strategies and
provide protection to food supplies in their home countries. As a result, this research
uses the Delphi method to provide an international forum of food safety experts,
utilizing electronic communication, to improve the development and dissemination

of training materials, course packets, and intemet resources.

Research blem

More and more food products are being exchanged across borders without
food safety systems in place. Countries are at different stages of developing food
safety systems for the Asia Pacific region and the United States. Without the
benefit of a harmonized food safety system between these countries safe food
supplies are in question.
Pumose of This Research

This research aims to identify and list key constraints to a harmonized food
safety system, the mechanisms used to solve food safety problcrm, and resources
available in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.
Research Objectives
Research objectives are designed:

1) To utilize the Delphi method, via electronic communication, to enable

interaction among a panel from diverse backgrounds and locations.

45

2) To identify a list of key constraints to a harmonized food safety system
in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

3) To identify a list of mechanisms used in solving food safety issues in
the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

4) To identify resources (websites, publications, and unpublished reports)
available to address food safety issues in the Asia Pacific region and

the United States.

Section 2: Design

Research Desi
The Delphi method was used for this research because of the advantages of

using a web based survey and the positive results of similar studies (Golzynski,
2001; Medeiros, Kendall, Hillers, Chen, & DiMascola, 101; L. Medeiros, P.
Kendall, V. Hillers, G. Chen, & S. DiMascola, 2001). The Delphi design has been
shown to be effective in obtaining good results with similar research objectives.
For example, this method is uniquely designed to include participants who may be
geographically dispersed (Schmidt, Lyytinen, Keil, & Cule, 2001). The Delphi
method has been widely used when the research focus is on subjective information
(Sanchez & Escobar, 2000) and when program development is needed (Delbecq,
Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). Overall, Delphi research has been useful in
problem resolution in several fields such as education, professional competencies,
health, food safety behaviors and international affairs (McCampbell & Hehner,

1993; L. C. Medeiros et al., 2001).

46

Historically, the Delphi method has been comprised of a series of
questionnaires sent by mail to a pre-selected group of experts. These
questionnaires are designed to elicit and develop individual responses to the
problems posed and to enable the experts to refine their views as the group’s work
progresses in accordance with the assigned task. The group interaction in Delphi
is anonymous, in the sense that comments are not identified but are presented to
the group in such a way as to suppress any identification (Linstone & Turoff,
1975). This decision making process allows people to an equal voice in the

OUtCOITlC.

This Delphi research will further Golznyski’s work which used e-mail to
contact geographically dispersed participants (Golzynski, 2001). By using
electronic communication, including a web-based survey, this research provides a
potential for overcoming international boundaries (Dillman, 2000). The Delphi
method uses a highly structured and focused questionnaire to establish consensus
opinion from experts (Czinkota & Ronkainen, 1997; Story, Hurdley, Smith, &
Saker, 2001). The web-based survey design is able to elicit and develop individual
responses through a password protected site and constructing a fixed format,
making the questionnaires appear the same for all of the participants. This design
makes possrble a low cost means of communication between a panel of experts

from diverse backgrounds and locations.

Human subject approval was obtained from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University prior to

beginning this research

47

Selection of Participants

The first step in the Delphi method is to identify experts. In some Delphi
studies, the participants are known to the researcher (Chang & Gable, 2000).
However, for this study, participants were identified using the snowball sampling
technique. This is defined as a “purposive technique for finding research subjects
that can provide the relevant information about the topic” (Ary, Jacobs, &
Razavieh, 2002). The sampling consisted of an initially selected group of experts
in food safety, who in turn provided the name of another expert, who in turn
provided the name of a third, and so on (Vogt, 1993). By following Golzynski’s
(Golzynski, 2001) research design, an electronic communication (e-mail) message
was sent asking to identify three to four international experts in the field of food
safety. (See Appendix A for email requesting food safety experts to recommend
other experts). The message stated that this was not a commitment to participate
in the study. To supplement the expert referral and seek a broad range of
participants, a literature search was made to further identify food safety experts

(Delbecq et al., 1975). Recruitment continued for two weeks.

Description of the Participants

The group of participants who were asked to participate in the initial
Round I consisted of a group of identified experts that came from diverse
communities (22 countries), able to respond in English, and had e-mail addresses.
It has been reported that the Delphi process and methodology can be done with as

few as 10 participants but works best with a group of 15-20. Again, following

48

Golzynski’s work and others, a potential pool of 147 participants was determined
to be a sufficient size group to begin the study (N. C. Dalkey, 1970; Golzynski,
2001; Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Olson, Olson, Storresten, & Carter, 1993).

This study only surveyed people who use electronic mail or the Web. The
population selected for this study, such as university professors, government
employees, workers in many companies, and corporations generally have an
Internet address and access to the Web. Therefore, research has shown good

probability for conducting a survey to this limited population (Dillman, 2000).

Section 3: The Instrument

Instrument

After the identification of a potential pool of participants, an electronic
communication (e-mail) was sent explaining the purpose of the research, how the
Delphi method worked, and how long the study would last. (See Appendix B for
e-rnail instructions for food safety experts to participate in Round I.) In this
communication, instructions were given to access the password protected web site
with a participant number. When designing this web-based survey all of the
responses were routed to an e-mail account identified only the participants’

personal identification number (PIN).

Reliabilig and Valid_ity'

To address the reliability of this study, several factors were considered.
The survey instrument and delivery mode needed to address the demands of

international participants. To ensure the soundness of using a web-based survey,

49

consideration was given to developing a simple design to acconmrodate the
differences that may exist with the capabilities of people’s computers and software
access to the web. (See Appendix C for sample of the Password protected web-
based survey used in this study.) Considerations of older equipment or widely
varying computer connections were also taken into account. By following
Dillman’s principles (Dillman, 2000) of designing Internet and web surveys, this

study:

0 Tested the survey “as seen by the respondent’s using different kinds of
web browsers” ( e.g., Internet Explorer verses Netscape and different
operating systems ( e.g., PC versus Macintosh);

- Included a welcome page that had motivational ease of responding and
instructions for the participants to respond;

0 Ensured a password protected web site with a participant number PIN
number for limited access only; and

o Followed a conventional format.

In a Delphi study, Dalkey reports for a reliability of 0.80 of the data was
assured if at least 13 participants return responses (R. Dalkey & Helmer, 1963).
Experts in food safety, research design, and computer technology pilot tested the
questions for soundness and clarity. These pre-test groups of experts were not

included in the study.

A request was made to have several experts view the survey questions
resulting in minor adjustments made. Following the responses in Round 1,

additional food safety experts (not included in the study) were asked to validate the

50

items. Connnents were sought regarding the soundness and accuracy of the
responses. Results from Round 11 were reviewed by outside experts to help

validate the results as being a voice of expert opinion in food safety.

Round I

Round I questions were developed to define the problem and provide broad
understanding of the views of the experts. The responses from Round I were
routed to an e-mail address, identified by the participants PIN, and then coded
based on similar responses and categorized using HyperReserch©, a code-and-
retrieve data analysis program See Appendix D for an example of a web-based

survey.

Round H

The first step in creating the questionnaire for Round H was to compile the
findings from Round 1. The participants were asked to look at the synthesized list
of statements from Round I and state their degree of agreement. Each statement
used a five point Likert-type scale: SD (strongly disagree), D (disagree), U
(undecided), A (agree), and SA (strongly agree). Participants were encouraged to
comment on the list from Round I and to write in clarification of the issues
revealed in Round I. The responses from Round I were routed to an e-mail
address, identified by the participants’ PIN. See Appendix E for e-mail providing

instructions to Round 11 survey.

51

Round III

In this final round, the participants were asked to give final consideration to
results summarized in Round II. Statements that reflect the top level of agreement
from Round II were presented to the participants to state their degree of
agreement. Each statement used A (agree) or D (disagree). Participants were
encouraged to comment on the list and to write in clarification of the issues
revealed in Round II. Round HI was used to facilitate electronic discussion and
build group consensus. The responses from Round 1]] were routed to an e-mail
address, identified by the participants PIN. See Appendix F for e-mail instructions

to respond to Round III survey.

Section 4: Data Analysis

A code and retrieval software program, HyperResearch© was used to
categorize the text fiom the responses in Round 1. A master code list was created
from the list of research objectives (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This list was used
to mark off segments of the data that were closely related. One advantage of using
data retrieval software is that it allows for key words to be linked to text very
quickly. This coding approach pointed to general domains developed and major
categories emerged based on similar traits (Strauss, 1987). As these categories

emerged, they were used to build a list for Round H.

For Round H and Round [11, a percentage of the group’s average rating was

calculated using a Word Excel© worksheet. This descriptive statistic provided a

52

numerical value for further analysis regarding the responses and significance

determining what questions scored above the 75th percentile.

53

Chapter IV

Results

Introduction
The research results are organized into four main areas in an attempt to
address the following research objectives:
0 To utilize the Delphi technique to enable communication among a
panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and locations.
0 To identify a list of key constraints to a harmonized food system in the
Asia Pacific region and the United States.
0 To identify a list of mechanisms used in solving food safety issues in
the Asia Pacific region and the United States.
0 To identify a list of resources (websites, publications, and reports)
available to address food safety issues in the Asia Pacific region

and the United States.

The Four Main Areas
1) Results of Delphi Round I
The first section provides both a broad overview of the results during
Round 1, as well as the factors related to the Delphi technique via
electronic communication. Specifically, I provide:
a) results of key constraints;
b) results of mechanisms to address food safety issues,

c) results of food safety resources;

54

d) thematic analyses of electronic communication to develop Round
11 of Delphi; and,

e) insights from electronic communication.

2) Results of Delphi Round 11
The second section provides results of Round II including:
a) results of key constraints;
b) results of mechanisms to address food safety issues;
c) statistical analyses of electronic communication to develop
Round HI of Delphi; and

d) insights from electronic communication comments.

3) Results of Delphi Round III
This section of the results elaborates my research results from the first two
sections to facilitated electronic communication to build group consensus
through Round III of the Delphi. This includes:

a) results of key constraints;

b) results of mechanisms to address food safety issue;

0) statistical analyses of electronic connnunication to develop group

consensus; and,

d) insights from electronic communication.

55

4) Research Objectives
The results are categorized according to the corresponding research

objectives.

Results of Delphi Round I

As a first step, the snowball method was used to obtain a panel of experts
who would become the potential participants of this research. The potential pool
of participants were sent an electronic communication (e-nrail) and asked to
participate in the study via a password protected website. See Appendix G for a
list of countries represented by the pool of potential experts asked to participate in
this study. As a result nearly 50 percent of the pool of participants in this study
was from developing countries including: China, India, Indonesia, Korea,
Malaysia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Independent Samoa, Singapore, Thailand,

The Philippines, Tonga, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.

0 147 potential pool of food safety experts
o 22 countries were contacted

o 55 participants from developed countries
0 62 participants from deve10ping countries
0 1 International agency

0 3 participants countries were unidentified

o 24 Electronic mail addresses were undeliverable out of 147

56

Participants for Round I

A group of experts emerged by using the snowball technique. With this
pool of potential participants, Round I began. The potential pool of participants
was asked to identify key constraints to a harmonized food safety system in the
Asia Pacific region and the United States. As a result, half of the participants
represented developing countries that included: China, India, Indonesia, Papua
New Guinea, The Philippines, and Thailand.

0 18 participants responded to Round I

o 10 countries were represented

o 50 % developed-developing countries represented

o 1 participant responded from an international agency

Round I — Survey Results of Question Rggarding Key Constraints

The participants responses fiom Round I were coded based on similar
responses and categorized using HyperReserch©, a code-and—retrieve data analysis
program. See Table 2 for the results of responses sorted into similar categories.

0 15 key constraints were identified by the participants.

57

Taple 2: Results of Round 1: Participants Identified a List of Key Constraints
to a Harmonized Food Safety System in Asia Pacific and United States

I “What are the key constraints to a harmonized food safety system in the

Asia Pacific region and the United States?”

 

  
   

 

Inadequate knowledge of food safety (microbial, chenrical, technical
capability) in developing countries

Difficult to understand and comply with International food safety standards
Differences in culture including, food habits, agricultural practices, Islamic
food laws

Political: Economic concerns before public health

Too nrany government agencies

SP8 is being used to politically deter imports

Type of pathogens commonly found in Asia Pacific and United States
Data from industry considered propriety rights

Pest control nrore complex in tropics

Tolerances to be agreed on to reflect value of food trade between Asia
Pacific and United States

Standards are based on detectable criteria, not on implementable criteria
Limited government framework (enforcement, regulations, laws, resources)
in developing countries

Difference in type of business -mechanized vs. small operations.

Systems for monitoring greatly affected by politics

US. has a highly sophisticated food safety infrastructure and it is difficult
for many countries in Asia Pacific region to meet U.S. requirements

Round I — Survey Results of Question _R_egarding Mechanisms

Round I asked participants to identify the mechanisnrs used to address food

safety issues. Responses were then coded based on similar responses and

categorized using HyperReserch©, a code-and—retrieve data analysis program See

Table 3 for the responses sorted into similar categories.

0 23 mechanisms to address food safety issues were identified by the

participants.

58

Table 3: Results of Round 1: Participants Identified a List of Mechanisms

Used to Solve Food Safety Problems in Asia Pacific region and United States

 

r “What are the mechanisms used to solve food safety problems?”

 

Food and Drug Agencies (government) control of all food sold
Goods must be registered

Mandatory Food laws

Established group of ministers to resolve issues

Technical assistance from developed countries

Risk analysis training

Building food recall systems

Visit developing countries

Ban agricultural products that may pose a risk to human health
Intensify research when problems arise

When problems arise obtain expertise from other countries
Review and adjust inspection systems, based on science
Involve stakeholder participation (farmers, food industry, retail,
consumers) '
Improve risk communication

Test chemical and microbes in food-domestic and imported
Legislation lobbying

Mass media

Food industry self-regulation

Utilize experts (universities, professional groups, trade groups)
Voluntary standards

Risk assessments are followed by risk management actions
Education and training of all stakeholders (farmers, consumers,
producers)

Creating rapid alert systems

 

Round I — Results of Question Rggarding Food Safety Resources

Round I asked participants to identify food safety resources such as

websites, publications, reports, unpublished materials, training, etc. See Table 4

for the complete list of food safety resources identified by the participants in

Round I.

30 resources available to address Food Safety

59

Table 4: Participants Identified a List of Food Safety Resources in Round I

 

 

Resources available to address food safety:
0 Global Handbook of Food and Water Safety (published by
CTThomas)
Websites
Publications reports
Training
Workshops
Government publications
Text book
Reports unpublished
Newspaper
Magazine
Experiences
Trainings — Universities
NGO
Consultants
Knowledgeable experts that are perceived by the public to be
independent
Scientific institutions
Inter-govemmental agencies like WHO, FAO, GEMS/FOOD,
IPPC, OIE
FAO/ WHO scientific committee reports and evaluations
Codex standards
National legislation and standards
Reports from inspection services
WTO/SPS training material
Hands-on experience to train
Research studies that address key food safety issues
Food Safety Forum
Websites: www.foodstandard.gov.au, www.moac.go.th,
www.moph.go.th, www.moi.go.th, www.nfi.or.th, www.tistr.or.th,
www.biotec.or.th, www.nstda.or.th, www.ku.ac.th
Mass Media— TV
Reports developed by F SANZ
Country food safety agency websites
Trainingmrgrams developed by region

 

60

 

 

Thematic Analyses to Develop Round H of Delphi

A master code list was generated to retrieve data using an analysis
program. This coding approach pointed to general domains that emerged into a

list for Round II. See the Methods Chapter for more discussion.

Results from Electronic Communication
Several of the participants declined participation. Reasons included:
0 “did not feel qualified”;
0 “was no longer in the position”;
0 “did not have the time”;
o “automated ‘out of office’”; and
o 24 electronic communications were returned as “undeliverable.”
One week after the study began, a reminder electronic communication was
sent out to the pool of potential experts asking for their participation. This resulted
in 3 more responses.
Results of Delphi Round H
All of the participants who responded to Round I were contacted to
participate in Round II. This included 18 participants, who were sent an electronic
connnunication (e-mail) and asked to respond to the next round of the study via a
password protected website. The response rate was a 100% from this group. In
addition, two more participants from the initial pool of participants asked to join
the study. See Appendix H for a list of countries represented in which participants

completed the tasks in Round 11.

61

o 20 participants completed Round 11
o 100% participation from those who responded to Round I
o 2 participants joined the study at Round II

o 9 countries were represented

Results of Key Constraints

Participants in Round II were asked to respond using a Likert—type scale to
the statements that related to the question, “What are the key constraints to a
harmonized food safety system in the Asia Pacific region and the United States?”
Table 5 represents to what degree they indicate disagree or agree with the
statements distilled from the responses in Round 1. The results of the responses
sorted into SD (strongly disagree), D (disagree), U (undecided), A (agree), and SA
(strongly agree). See Appendix I for Round H list of comments from participants

regarding: Constraints.

62

Table 5: Results from Round H: Participants Indicate Disagree or Agree with
the Statements Distilled from Round I

 

 

 

 

 

“What are the key constraints to a harmonized food safety system in the
Asia Pacific region and the United States?”
SD D U A SA
a. Inadequateknowledgeoffoodsafety.................................0 3 2 10 4
b. Difficult to understand and comply with .............................. 0 1 1 13 5
international food safety standards
c. Difi’erencesincultureincluding,foodhabits.........................0 1 2 10 7
agricultural practices, Islamic food laws
(1. Political: Economic concerns before public health... ...0 4 0 9 7
e. Toomanygovernmartagencies........................................0 5 3 9 3
f. SPSisbeingusedtopoliticallydeterimports.........................0 3 6 5 5
g. SPSisbeingusedtopoliticallydeterimports........................0 3 7 5 6
h. Type of pathogens commonly Asia Pacific and US ....................... 0 6 4 7 2
i. Data from industry considered propriety rights ....................... 0 8 4 7 l
j. Pestcontrolmorecomplexintropics...................................0 3 5 8 4
k. Tolerancestobeagreedontoreflect...................................0 2 9 6 3
value of food trade between Asia and US.
1. Standards arebasedondetectablecritaia,not........................0 3 4 11 2
onimplemental critaia
m. Limited government framework... ...0 1 0 0 12
(enforcement, regulations, laws, resources) in developing counuies
n. Difi’erenceintypeofbusiness-.. 0 l 4 9 6
mechanized vs. small operations
0. Systemsformonitoringgreatlyafl’ected...............................0 3 4 10 3
bypolitics
p. U..S hasahighlysophisticatedfood safety... ...1 2 2 11 4
_infrastructur it isdifficulfr tnes in Asi_r_-_u_'on to meet U. S r . r lemurts

 

Results of Mechanisms

Participants in Round H were asked to answer the question, “What are the
mechanisms used to solve food safety problems?” See Table 6 for the responses
and to what degree they indicate disagree or agree with the statements distilled
from the responses in Round 1. See Appendix J for Round 11 list of comments

from participants regarding: Mechanisms.

63

Table 6: Results from Round II: Participants Indicate Disagree or Agree with
the Statements Distilled from Round I.

   

 

 

M _“Watre the mecanhisms used to solve food safety problems?”

 

 

 

SD D U A SA %
a. Food and Drug Agencies (government). ..1 3 1 12 2 70%
control all food
b.Goodsmustberegistered....................l 5 2 10 2 60%
cLawsmandatory...............................0 0 0 1 12 95%
d. Groups of Ministers have been ............. 0 S 5 9 1 50%
established to resolve issues
e Technical assistance from .................... 0 1 0 11 8 90%
developing. countries
erskanalysrstrarnmgO 0 0 8 12 100%
g.Buildingfoodrecall systems.......0 0 3 12 5 85%
h. Visit developing countries .................. 0 0 2 l4 3 . 85%
i. Ban agricultural products... .1 2 3 10 4 70%
that may pose a risk to human health
j Intensify research when problems arise. . .0 3 2 9 6 75%
k. When problems arise obtain expertise... .0 1 2 15 2 85%
from otha countries
1. Adjust inspection systems— ................... 0 0 0 13 7 100%
based on science
m. Involve stakeholder participation ......... 0 0 1 10 9 95%
(farmers, food industry, retail, consumers)

n. Improve risk communication... . ..0 0 1 11 8 95%
0. Test chemical and microbes in food- ...... 0 0 0 14 6 100%
domestic and imported

p. Legislation lobbying ........................... 0 2 8 7 2 45%
q. Massmedrao 0 6 11 2 60%

r. Food industry self-regulation ................. 1 4 3 7 4 55%

s. Utilize experts .................................. 0 0 1 12 7 95%
(universities, professorial” groups, trade groups)

tHVoluntarystandards” .. ..3 6 1 9 1 50%
11. Risk assessments are followed ............... 0 l 1 8 10 90%
by risk managernmt actions

v. Education and training of all ................. 0 0 1 9 10 95%
Stakeholders (farmers, consumers, producers)

w. Create gpid ala't systems ................... 0 0 2 10 8 90%

 

 

64

Statistical Angina to Develop Round [H of Delphi

The responses from the participants were entered into a Word Excel©
spreadsheet to allow for statistical percentile. This was done to examine the group
responses and determine what questions score above the 75‘” percentile. The list
of responses distilled from the group regarding: “What are the key constraints to a
harmonized food safety system in the Asia Pacific region and the United States” is
shown in Table 7. In addition, there is a list of responses above the 75d. percentile
fiom the group regarding: “What are the mechanisms used to solve food safety

problems in the Asia Pacific region and the United States” also shown in Table 7.

65

Tgble 7: Summary of Participant’s Responses Above the 75‘” percentile

 

 

the Asia Pacific region and the United States?”

 

o Inadequate knowledge of food safety (microbial, chemical, technical
capability) in developing countries;

0 Difficult to understand and comply with International food safety
standards;

0 Differences in culture including, food habits, agricultural practices, Islamic
food laws;

0 Political: Economic concerns before public health;
a Difference in type of business- mechanized vs. small operations; and

0 US. has a highly sophisticated food safety infrastructure and it is diflicult
for many countries in Asia Pacific region to meet U.S. requirements.

 

“What are the mechanisms used to solve food safety problems?”

 

 

 

0 Food laws - mandatory;

0 Technical assistance from developed countries;

0 Risk analysis training;

0 Building food recall systems;

0 Visit developing countries;

0 Intensify research when problems arise;

0 When problems arise obtain expertise from other countries;
0 Review and adjust inspection systems, based on science;

0 Involve stakeholder participation ( farmers, food industry, retail,
consumers);

- Improve risk connnunication;

0 Test chemical and microbes in food—domestic and imported;

o Utilize experts (university, professional groups, trade groups);

0 Risk assessments are followed by risk management actions;

0 Education and training of all stakeholders (farmers, consumers, producers);
0 Creating rapid alert systerm.

 

66

Elemmg Cpmmunication Commeng
All of the participants who completed the tasks for Round I conrpleted the

task for Round H. Two individuals sent an electronic communication requesting
participation in the study, although they had missed participation in Round 1. The
electronic communication inviting participants to join the study during Round I
was received while they were out of town. A participant who completed Round H
did not include the PIN/H) number, therefore there is an assumption that one
response was from the group who completed Round I and move to Round H. An
electronic communication was sent as a renrinder one week before the end of

Round H. As a result the final two responses were received.

Results of Delphi Round III

The last section of the results elaborates the findings from the first two
survey rounds in an effort to build group consensus. The electronic
communication was extended to include the participants from Round I and Round
H, which formed a panel of 20 individuals. When Round HI began, two
participants responded: “out of office” and e-mail address not working. See
Appendix K for a list of countries represented in which participants completed the
tasks in Round III.

e 19 participants completed Round IH
- 8 countries were represented
o 1 International agency

0 40% of the participants were from developing countries

67

List of Key Constraing

Round IH of the Delphi process is an attempt to build group consensus.
See Table 8 for complete breakdowns of group results to the question do you agree
or disagree to the statements regarding: “What are the key constraints to a
harmonized food safety system in the Asia Pacific region and the United States?”
The group was unable to ruranimously agree on any of the key constraints
identified in Round H to a harmonized food safety system in the Asia Pacific
region and United States:
mpg; Results of Round IH: Participants Responses (Agree or Disagree):

“What are the Key Constraints to a Harmonized Food Safety System in the
Asia Pacific region and the United States?” ‘

 

“What are the key constraints to a harmonized food safety system in the
Asia Pacific region and the United States?”

 

Agree Disagree Statement

 

 

l7 1 Inadequate knowledge of food safety

16 2 Difficult to understand and comply

l7 1 Differences in culture, including food habits

15 3 Political: Economic concerns before public health
14 4 Difference in type of businesses

15 3 U.S. has a highly sophisticated system

   

 

List of Mechanisms to Address Fwd Safe_ty Issue

Round [H of the Delphi process also attempted to build group consensus
for the questions “What are the mechanisms used to solve food safety problems?”
See Table 9 for complete breakdowns of the group response to the question do you

agree or disagree to the statements regarding: “What are the mechanisms used to

68

solve food safety problems?” The group was able to completely agree on several

of the mechanisms identified in Round H essential to harmonizing food safety

systems in the Asia Pacific region and United States.

Risk analysis training;

Review and adjust inspection systems, based on science;

Involve stakeholder participation (farmers, industry, retail, consumers);

Improve risk communication;

Utilize experts (universities, professional groups, trade groups);

Risk assessments are followed by risk management actions; and

Education/training of all stakeholders (farmers, consumers, producers).

Table 9: Results of Round III: Participants Responses (Agree or Disagree):
“What Are the Mechanisms Used to Solve Food Safety Problems?”

 

 

 

 

 

. Agree Disagree Expert Consensus
' 12 6 Government control of all food sold
I 18 0 Risk analysis training
15 3 Building food recall systems
15 3 Visit developing countries
16 2 Intensify research when problems arise
l7 1 Obtain expertise from other countries
18 0 Review and adjust inspection systems,
18 0 Involve stakeholder participation (farmers, iudustry, retail,
18 0 Improve risk communication
16 2 Test food - domestic and imported
18 0 Utilize experts (universities, professional groups, trade groups)
18 0 Risk assessments are followed by risk management
18 0

 

Education/traiuiuéof all stakeholders

 

69

Summagy of Key Findings

The key findings developed and agreed to by the participants regarding key
constraints include: inadequate knowledge of food safety in developing countries;
difficulty in understanding and complying with international food safety standards;
differences in culture, including food habits, agricultural practices, Islamic food
laws; political and economic concerns before public health; difference in type of
businesses-mechanized vs. small operations; the U.S. has a highly sophisticated
infrastructure, therefore, difficult for many countries in the Asia Pacific region to
meet U.S. requirements.

Those recommendations unanimously agreed to by all of the participants
are: 1) Risk analysis training is needed to ensure a systematic approach to science-
based decision making; 2) Review and adjust inspection systerm, based on
science, using methods that are consistent to the international community; 3)
Involve stakeholder participation, include building partnerships; 4) Validated risk
communication research is needed; 5) Utilize relevant expertise from universities,
professional groups, trade groups, and food safety writers when developing food
safety systems; 6) When developing food safety policy, risk assessments are
followed by risk management actions; and 7) There is a need to educate/train all
stakeholders (farmers, consumers, producers, media, and regulators) in a clear and
consistent manner. In addition, more than 30 recourses were identified to address

food safety in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

70

Chapter V

Conclusions, Observations and Recommendations

Introduction

This chapter contains conclusions and observations drawn from the major
findings in this study. Chapter V concludes with reconrmendations for using the
findings, as well as reconrmendations for further research. The purpose of this
research was to develop a list of key constraints to harmonized food systems,
mechanisms used to solve food safety problems, and resources available in the
United States and the Asia Pacific region. Many findings of this study are
supported by the literature. New information pertaining to this topic, particularly
to the United States and the Asia Pacific region, were also discovered

The Delphi Method utilized in gathering information was effective in
proving that: 1) geographically diverse participants can come together via
electronic connnunication to provide useful information in a cost effective way; 2)
findings fiom this study can be used to develop regional strategies to address food
safety capacity building; 3) working groups can be formed and may continue
beyond participation in the study; 4) this platform is adaptable and may be useful
to other countries/regions; and, 5) the Internet offers an opportunity for interaction

and encourages timely responses.

71

Discussion of Research Opiectives

The discussion is categorized according to the corresponding research
objectives.

Objective 1 - To utilize the Delphi method, via electronic

communication, to enable interaction among a panel from diverse

backgrounds and locations.

An objective of this study was to use the Delphi method to determine if
interaction between a panel from geographically diverse backgrounds and
locations would occur. By using the World Wide Web to deliver a Delphi method
study a solution was found in recruiting a panel of participants from diverse
backgrounds and locations. This approach was able to generate interaction from
an international panel of participants who lived in both developed and developing
countries, across many time zones, and with multiple cultural and work related
differences. The results fiom this process will be useful in future efforts to obtain
input from geographically diverse individuals constricted by resources to meet
face-to-face.

When international food safety standard setting foruns occur there tends to
be a proportionally higher representation fiom developed countries (Traill et al.,
2002). For the most part, developing countries are unable to afford the expense of
travel and have lirrrited resources for participation. Frequently, individuals who
could afford participation, are needed in their home countries and are unable to
attend out-of-country meetings. These results of this study demonstrate that the

Delphi technique is an alternative method of improving communication.

72

Extensive output of time away from work and costs such as overseas travel, long
distance telephone calls and/ or traditional mail can be avoided.

Since food safety is a global issue, participation fiom developing countries
is necessary to help establish international standards, guidelines and other
reconrmendations. Currently, the Codex Alimentarius Connrrittee is seeking a
means for greater participation and representation of all countries to obtain
international consensus for food safety requirements (Moy, 2002). For more than
40 years, Codex has played a leading role in providing scientific information
through a science-based exchange of views to reach a consensus (Hiroshi Yoshikura,
2000). In the past, this forum has required face-to—face meetings resulting in
international guidelines that affect every aspect of food systens (food labels,
levels of contaminates maximum residue linrits of pesticides and rules for animal
feeding). Representatives from international organizations have recognized that
there is a need for the process of consensus building anrong food safetyexperts;
however, it is clear that building consensus must include all of the stakeholders
(Provision of Scientific Advice to Codex and Member Countries, 2004). The
participants in this study emphasize the point by stating, “Solving problems in relation
to food systenrs, industry and regulations calls for a round table discussion,” and “It is
difficult to understand and comply with rapidly changing international food safety
standards. There needs to be improved communication and dissemination of
information.” Clearly, the Delphi Method has provided a viable solution to bringing
together interested parties in a cost effective way.

At times the nature of food safety is political and therefore anonymity is

particularly valuable when individuals may feel constrained in expressing their

73

own views (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). “Frequent changes in food standards in the
developed world and lack of proper flow of information to the deve10ping
countries, not allowing reasonable time and duration, is an example of how the
international standards setting process is being used to politically deter exports” is
a summary statement made by a participant of this study. By employing the
Delphi method, anonymity of each participant is assured and the diversity of the
participants is preserved by avoiding dominance.

It has been recognized that better communication is needed to ensure
scientific procedures to promote public health and food safety (Rampton &
Stauber, 2001). Governments everywhere are seeking ways to engage
stakeholders and promote open discussions. As stated in Golzynski’s study, “The
Delphi method provided a reasonable start for examining complex topics”
(Golzynski, 2001). Going one step further, this study’s high participation rates,
readiness to participate and quality of responses successfully indicates the Delphi
method as an exceptionally suitable tool for international food safety forums to
communicate with diverse groups.

Objective 2 - To identify a list of key constraints to a harmonized food

safety system in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

Published literature addresses constraints to harnronized food safety systems
on a global scale. There have been reports that food safety systems in the Asia
Pacific region lack food laws, resources, and government support. In addition, the
U.S. food system, compared to the world, is a very sophisticated structure. Yet,

the interconnectedness of our global food supply calls for a more detailed

74

understanding of what are the constraints to harmonized food safety systems in the
Asia Pacific region and the United States. The panel of participants in this study
were able to develop and agree to several constraints that include: inadequate
knowledge of food safety in developing countries; difficulty in understanding and
complying with international food safety standards; differences in culture,
including food habits, agricultural practices, Islamic food laws; political and
economic concerns before public health; difference in type of businesses-
mechanized vs. small operations; and the U.S. has a highly sophisticated
infrastructure difficult for many countries in the Asia Pacific region to meet U.S.
requirements. The responses from this study provide important information.

In some situations, food safety constraints focused on differences of food
habits and cultural conditions of countries (Fox & Hackney, 2003; Kaferstein,
2003; Ryser, 1999). For example, responses fi'om some participants in this study
bring to light important slaughter practices to ensure Halal meat and Muslims’
willingness to purchase food from the United States. “The halalness (the Islamic
lawfulness) of the food for people in the Moslem countries may not be understood
by people from non-Moslem countries.” This forum is able to bring to focus on
behaviors that may not be scientific food safety issues, but never-the—less affect
trade.

Participant responses indicate a willingness among experts in food safety
need to work together and address issues in harmonizing food safety systems. One
participant stated, “Developing countries need to focus on building partnerships to

solve problems.” This study identifies key constraints to providing food safety

75

experts with a list of issues that need to be addressed Very few research studies
exist that explicitly view the constraints, mechanisms, and resources used or
needed to create international food safety systems.

Objective 3 - To identify a list of mechanisms used in solving food

safety issues in the Asia Pacific region and the United States.

This objective asked participants to identify relevant mechanism for
solving food safety issues in both the United States and the Asia Pacific region.
The comments from the participants provide a roadrmp for developing and
instituting mechanisms required in solving food safety problems in both developed
and developing countries.

Those recommendations for mechanisms unanimously agreed to by all of
the participants are:

0 Risk analysis training is needed to ensure a systematic approach to science-
based decision making.

0 Review and adjust inspection systems, based on science, using methods
that are consistent to the international community.

- Involve stakeholder participation (farmers, industry, retail, media, and
consumers); include building partnerships.

o Validated risk communication research is needed to inrprove risk
communication.

0 Utilize relevant expertise from universities, professional groups, trade

groups, and food safety writers when developing food safety systems.

76

0 When developing food safety policy, risk assessments are followed by risk
management actions.

0 There is a need to educate/train all stakeholders (farmers, consumers,
producers, media, and regulators) in a clear and consistent nranner.

Risk analysis weighs relevant risk factors, using science-based practices.
In the past century, science has added insight into food safety issues. As a result,
governments are asked to regulate public exposure to contaminants/risks in food,
water and the environment. It is necessary to have consistent application, using
science-based principles and transparency of the results. The role of the local
government is to protect its citizens and have a need to develop relevant food laws
based on risk analysis data. In developing countries they may not have the
capacity to adequately determine their science-based risks (Henson, 2003).

This study found that many countries have a need to change food safety
requirements and add more science-based research capacity. Without
epidemiological data policy makers have difficulty making food safety decisions.
Many countries are shifting their resources to adopt risk assessment practices, as
stated by a participant from Japan; “Last year, the Japanese government adopted
Risk Analysis as a key food safety policy and established the Food Safety
commission in the cabinet office.” However, as several participants of this study
stated, “Differing capacities to develop and implement regulatory programs and
infrastructure are currently key constraints to harmonized food safety systems.”

Furthermore, findings stress the need to involve stakeholder participation

(farmers, industry, retail, consumers). There is an increasing appreciation of the

77

importance of involving interested parties in the decision making process. While
the participants in this study see stakeholder participation as being necessary, how
to gain participation was not addressed. The literature has begun to introduce
more opportunities for participation and more research to understand how to obtain
good stakeholder participation (Anex & F ocht, 2002).

The advice of experts is usually sought as a means of gaining background
in forrmtion and insight fiom past experience (Starr, 2003). When a food safety
problem arises, the participants in this study all favored working with developed
countries, seeking experts who have experience. This may indicate a readiness to
include regional work plans for countries. For example, New Zealand and
Australia have developed a food safety authority for both countries and The
European Union (EU) has created one Food Safety Authority for member
nations. The U.S. food safety programs are committed to assist other countries in
training or education. One participant from the National Food Safety and
Toxicology Center on the campus of Michigan State University stated a
willingness to work with any country in the Asia Pacific region to help develop
targeted research, partner with international agencies and reach out to those
interested in working with international food safety issues. Fruther the response
included this comment, “There are enough similarities between the U.S. and most
Asian countries in the area of food safety and food control that there can be joint

projects, training and exchanges.”

78

Objective 4 - To identify resources (websites, publications, and

unpublished reports) available to address food safety issues in the Asia

Pacific region and the United States.

The resources identified by the participants can be sorted into three major
categories:

1) electronic; 2) govemnrent and regulatory functions; and 3) training.

Of all the identified resources, the participants unanimously listed
training/workshops as being the most important resource to address food safety.
Training is able to link food safety experts with those individuals and countries as
a means of addressing constraints and establishing mechanisms for solving food
safety problems in both the Asia Pacific region and the United States. Many food
safety issues require opportrmities to continuously gain new knowledge. A closer
look at the results provide a picture of what the participants of this study are
currently using for resources and professional development (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Three Categories of Food Safety Resources

 

 

Electronic: websites, food safety forurrs, publications, committee reports,
research reports, newspapers, and magazines

Government and regulatory: national legislation and standards, inspection
reports, Codex standards, government publications

Training: materials, workshops, experiences, consultants, NGOs, consultants,
universities, international organizations training materials, and hands-on

experience

 

79

 

For Further Research

Findings from this research and other studies have provided a wealth of
information that can be used to improve the safety of global food systems. The
following recommendations for practice and further research result form this study
are:

1) Epidemiologist surveillance data is needed to construct a primary list of
incidences of food borne illness. Risk assessment data is urgently needed in
developing countries to validate food safety guidelines specific to each country;
eating habits, religious food laws, environment, agricultural practices and food
processing systems.

2) Responses from participants indicate eagerness to work together and
share experiences with other food safety experts. One participant commented,
“We should not wait for problems to arise before intensifying research.” There is
a tremendous amount of work to be done in the area of food safety. A more
realistic approach could include regional centers of excellence and technical
resources such as, human development and laboratories that are able to support
regional food safety goals by sharing similar concerns.

3) The Delphi method proved to be effective in communicating with
geographically diverse populations. Further use of this process would increase the
ability to advance collaboration and offer a viable alternative for face-to-face

meetings when cost and travel time is prohibited.

80

4) The results of this study support the need for education and training. As
a next step, the participants in this study should be encouraged to continue to work
together and develop plans for regional training. Common themes have been
brought to light as a result of this study. The participants can begin by conrpiling a
more detailed list of their national resources into a usable publication. There is an
opportunity to utilize this already fornred group of international participants to
help build capacity in food safety. For example, interested members of the group
could be invited to contribute to a unique global food safety handbook or advanced

web-based site available as a source of support or help.

81

APPENDICES

82

APPENDIX A

E-mail to Identify Experts

83

E-mail to Identify Experts

 

 

My name is Cathy Pisano. I am a PhD candidate at Michigan State
University and I currently work at the Institute of International Agriculture.

For my dissertation research, I would like experts in food safety to rank
order barriers to a harmonized food system in the Asia Pacific region and the
United States. The technique that I plan to use is the Delphi method, which will be
administered via the Internet.

As part of the methods for this study, I need to identify international
experts in the field of food safety. I am asking you for your help in identifying
I potential people. After I have a list of potential participants, I will ask each to .
formally participate in the Delphi study. Your participation is completely
voluntary.

If you would please send me a list of 3-4 people (name and e-nrail address)
who you feel are experts in the field of food safety. I am specifically looking for a
wide variety of people who are active in their current professional roles. I would

like to contact people that have an ability to be futuristic in their thinking.

This is not a commitment to this study. If you have questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.

I will need these names no later than January 30, 2004. Thank you for
your help and support.

Cathy Pisano

 

84

 

APPENDIX B

E-mail Instructions - Round I

85

E-mail Instructions - Round I

 

 

Dear,

Approximately two weeks ago a colleague suggested your name as a
potential participant for this study. They indicated that you have expertise to
share.

Because of this expertise-- you have been chosen to participate in an
international Delphi study. This study seeks your unique insight to uncover key
constraints to a harmonized food system in the Asia Pacific region and the United
States. Your input is vital because of your experiences with food safety issues in
your region.

This Delphi study is anonymous to allow diverse ideas to be introduced.
The purpose of this study is to understand: Key constraints towards harmonized
food safety in the United States and the Asia Pacific region. The Delphi sequence:
Round (1) data is collected--Round (2) allow you to rate the issues---Round (3)
refine/ clarify the issues.

The overall time line: 10 days to complete each round - Participation in
study conrpleted in March.

You are free to change your opinion at anytime during the process.
Participation is voluntary and you will receive the results of this study. By
participating, your valuable input will benefit the international community.

To access the study, click on the link “Proceed to Delphi Study” and your

lntemet browser will be directed to the Delphi web page.

 

86

 

 

 

o The user name is cathyp and password is aghall319.

0 You will need to enter your participant number

0 Your number is Participant Number is xxx

0 If you attempt to go "back" to this page once you have started, you may
lose information.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to assist in this study.

Cathy Pisano

Institute of International Agriculture
Michigan State University

319 Agriculture Hall

East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Phone: (517) 432-8112

Fax: (517) 353-1888

E—mail: pisanoca@msu.edu

For questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study contactz.

University Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Chair, Peter Vasilenko

Phone: (517) 355—2180

Fax: (517) 432-4503

e-mail: ucrihs®msu . edu

 

87

 

APPENDIX C

Sample of password protected Web-based survey

88

       
       
     
     
     
   
   
       
      
   
       
      
    
   

 

Li.k,,iv . . . _ . ‘a—W-

‘3lln 1.... r. a ....y mun-nu lulrrrwl‘l'mq‘ 1,:3 ' ..pvi
FE Ed View rm Tort Hub
Kare ' 1'9 a at am fl'w,§3g_¢_ij' 4 .,~ ' d a s,

IWIQW‘1mhm'L‘ ‘ ‘L, * .hrm
I .. .....mw

‘3

 

z] (900 LNG ~unbsonrchv Mae' m

 

The Institute of
International Agriculture
Michigan State University

Food Safety Survey

|

I

1 Thank you for agreeing to particmatu in this study. Your input is highly valued in makm food safety
1 systems the best that It can be. Food safety expertise is needed to continuously mama and
l

l

l

   

understand tood safety programs that are currently in place.
To beam. tree the username and password that we o-marled to you in the boxes below.
Next. dick the loan button to 00 to the questionnaire itself.

We have also provided you with a Participant Number in your e-ma'rl. You will need this number on the
next page This rs recurred to limit access only to those people in the study and to assure
confidentiality to those who choose to partacata.

l

tau-.- ‘74 r “-

 

Ilka“
[Pu-sword

M 5.. RD , at the phone number below or at ursanuthmsJeQu Should you have
gunman: Anna? vmrr nor-£53: a mqgfnmfirrfnjflnfirf; meager (norms the MlmnAn

£1 r-“r—r“. . .
.. e‘roooscreu...lmm-... loam-res..l.srrlu¢uuu...l 31cm - . .. 'umfd“. Ii

 
 
 

. if you have qrmshnns or need further Information, please contact Cathy Pisano, I \
l

 

 

89

APPENDIX D

Example of Web Based survey

90

 

 

 

 

 

f" ‘ The institute of
international Agriculture
Michigan State University

Food Safety Survey

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study Your input is highly valued In understandin ng
international food safety issues. Food safety experts in Asia and the U. 5 have stated their views of
constraints and mechanism involved In their regions

Your statements from Round 1 have been compiled and listed below. Please answer the questions b
clicking on the appropriate button to the rig ht ofthe question. If you would like to comment on ma
question, please do so in the text box located below each question.

 

The following statements relate to your response co the question, "What are the key constraints to a
harmonized foods afety system In the ASIa region and the United States? and‘ What the
mechanisms used to solve food safety problems?’ We have sifted through all ofthe statements and
attempted to distill specific ideas from each of the groups of similar statements if we have failed to
include an important point please bring this to our attention by writing any comments youn have at tr
b mof the page. Please indicate to what extent you disagree or agree with the follow
statement: should be an objecbva of an agricultural leadership program by indicating' 'Strgngly
Disagree," "Disagree," "Undecided," "Agree," or "Strongly Disagree."

Participant Number (required) (located in your email): I

 

 

1. The key constraints to a harmonized food safety system in Asia region and the U.S. are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Inadequate knowledge of food safety (microbial, chemical, technical SD 0 U A SA

capability) In developing mun

I :l P f‘ (‘ P f‘
_'.|

b. Difficult to understand and comply with Inteman'onal food safety SD 0 U A SA

standards.

l 3 I" P P t‘ (‘
.2]

 

 

 

2.) Differences in culture including, foodhabits. Minna/practices, Islamic SD D U A SA
0d laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ ll 4 lrrr‘r‘r‘
Elm .F"l_l'im

 

 

 

 

91

APPENDIX E

E-mail Instructions - Round 11

92

E-mail Instructions - Round 11

 

 

Dear,

Welcome to Round 2 of the Delphi International Food Safety Survey.

We received a wealth of information from all of the responses, information that
will help to make food safety better in the future. As you read each statement,
please indicate your level of agreement by clicking on the appropriate radio button.
When finished please click the "submit" button at the bottom of the page. This
will submit your answers to our database.

Thank you for your continued participation in this study. Your input is vital
as your experience with food safety issues will benefit the international
community. We anticipate that it will take approximately 3-5 minutes to complete
this round of the study. I

To access the study, click on the link “Proceed to Delphi Study” and your
Internet browser will be directed to the Delphi web page.

0 The user name is cathyp and password is aghall319.

0 You will need to enter your participant number

0 Your number is Participant Number is XX

0 If you attempt to go "back" to this page once you have started, you may
lose information.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to assist in this study.

Cathy Pisano

Institute of International Agriculture
Michigan State University

319 Agriculture Hall

East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Phone: (517) 432-8112

Fax: (517)353-1888

E-mail: pisanoca@msu.edu

 

93

 

 

 

For questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study contact:

University Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Chair, Peter Vasilenko

Phone: (517) 355-2180

Fax: (517) 432-4503

e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

 

94

 

APPENDIX F

E-mail Instructions - Round [11

95

E-mail Instructions - Round III

 

 

Thank you for your participation in the international food safety survey. So far
we have had 100%---everyone has responded to the previous Rounds of survey
questions.

With you participation in this final round of the study the issues from Round I
and Round 11 will be clarified You input is valuable and will benefit the
international community.

You are free to change your opinion at anytime during the process and
participation is voluntary. You will receive the results of the study.

0 To access the study, click on the link
http://www.iia.msu.edu/foodsafetyenterhtmd” and your Internet browser
will be directed to the Delphi web page.

0 The user name is cathyp and password is aghall319
0 You will need to enter you participant number - Your number is 57

o If you attempt to go “back” to this page once you have started, you may
lose information.

Thank-you for taking the time to assist in this study.

Cathy Pisano

Institute of International Agriculture
Michigan State University

319 Agriculture Hall

East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Phone: (517)432-8112

Fax: (517) 353-1888

 

96

 

APPENDIX G

Countries asked to Participate in this Study

97

Countries asked to Participate in this Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cm he , ,_,_
magma, waging/$101M ,
AUSTRALIA O
CANADA 0 1
CHINA x 3
INDIA x 5
I INDONESIA x 5
JAPAN O 14
I KOREA x 11
MALAYSIA x 9
F NEW ZEALAND O 5
PAKISTAN x 1
PAPUA NEW GUINEA X 1
INDEPENDENT SAMOA x l
SINGAPORE x 2
THAILAND x 12
THE PHILIPPINES x‘ 8
TONGA x 1
UK 0 2
USA 0 21
VANUATU x 1
VIETNAM x 3
Unknown X 27
World Health Organization 2
l Total: 21 14 Total: 147

 

 

 

Developing cormtry = X, Developed Comrtry =0

98

APPENDIX H

Countries Participating in Round II

99

Countries Participating in Round 11

 

3

Country Developing/Developed Number Of

participants
2

 

AUSTRALIA
CHINA
INDIA
INDONESIA
JAPAN
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
PHILIPPINES
THAILAND
USA
| World Health Organization
Developing country = X, Developed Country =0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O><><><O><><><

 

u—PQNNt—bt—Nr—su—A

 

 

 

 

100

APPENDIX I

Round 11 Comments from Participants: CON TRAINTS

101

Round 11 Comments from Participants: CONTRAINTS

 

 

a. Inadequate knowledge of food safety
Too sweeping an assumption.
True in various contests in various countries

Some developing countries do have the expertise, like India, but proper
institutional set-up is not put in place for monitoring and implementation

 

I b. Diflicult to understand and comply with international standards

Either required to undertake trade or country may not recognize significance of
referring/adopting international standards

There are new rules and regulations from so many different organizations with
different limits.

Made by western Countries

Yes. Reasons are that some of the global food safety standards. Some food
standards are based on issues having no relevance to safety measures, for example
some standards are based on grading. Codex should take into account the data
from developing countries.

If a developing country's standard is scientifically safe, why shouldn’t Codex
I accept it as a global standard instead of searching for more stringent nomrs at the
instance of the developed world?

If you mean international standard by referring to standards formulated by US and
the European Union, I would say some of these standards are fixed arbitrarily
stringent with a view to restrict imports.

Countries are allowed to fix their national standards for appropriate level of
protection (ALOP), but this does not mean they should be arbitrary and politically
motivated.

 

 

102

 

Round II Comments from Participants: CONTRAINTS (continued)

 

 

J

c. Differences in culture including, food habits

Yes, but this is an acceptable point of difference as it reflects different acceptable
levels of protection

I strongly agree to this view.

There is a difference in culture and religion leading to difference in food habits
and agricultural practices.

Differences in agricultural practices are on account of climatic, agronomic, and
socio—economic considerations.

ONE THING IMPORTANT — World over there is a growing consumption of
VEGETARIAN FOOD. I am strongly in favor of labeling of food iterm as VEG or
NON-VEG. In India and in some Buddhist countries there is a large section of the
people by culture, tradition and religion who consume Vegetarian diet.

In Islamic countries people do not consume pork, hence the food items should be
labeled as containing ‘pork' or ‘no pork'

(1. Political: Economic concerns before public health

Sometimes very clearly so, but not always no I believe most countries work on
public health premise in the main; main hrn'dle is difference acceptable levels of
protection.

This leads to different regulation measures and thus disharmony
Sometimes very clearly so, but not always so
Yes, political and economic concerns are at times placed before public health.

This should not continue. For example: The Pepsico and Cococola in India thinks
they can continue to supply contaminated carbonated drinks in India and earn
profit without investing much in technology up gradation. They think they can
over-exploit groundwater and discharge untreated effluent - A recent instance in
Kerala in India. These two companies have clout in the government (political
consideration

 

103

Round 11 Comments from Participants: CONTRAINTS (continued)

 

 

 

e. Too many government agencies
Its not the number of agencies but their effectiveness and interaction that counts.

It’s no good having just one agency if its ineffective. Overlapping agency roles in
the USA (USDA, FDA, EPA) has helped ensure good track record in food safety,
though doubtless some duplication is in inevitable.

Yes there are too many government agencies in India, may be in other developing
countries, dictating food standards.

There is an urgent need for a connnon integrated food laws

f. SP8 is being used to politically deter imports.

I'll let WTO decide that one

SP8 is What?

This does occur in some situation but not on the whole. In fact quite the opposite
I strongly agree.

The frequent changing of food standards in the developed world without ensrning
proper flow of information to the developing countries and not allowing
reasonable time duration is an example of how the standards are being used
politically to deter exports

g. SP8 is being used to politically deter imports
I'll let WTO decide that one

h. Type of pathogens commonly found in the Asia Pacific and US.

Prevalence differs between countries as well as type so different control measures
come into play, but most are common

Types of Pathogens found in Asia and US differ. To cite an example there are 381
pathogens on APPLE grown worldwide, out of which 11 are found in India, 184
in US, 119 in China, 95 in Australia and 119 in New Zealand. The figures show
that many pathogens are exotic in respective countries and an issue of concern and
hence calls for application of quarantine measures on irrrports

._‘l

104

 

Round II Comments from Participants: CONTRAINTS (continued)

 

 

i. Data from industry considered propriety rights.
No this is secondary consideration

Industry data are, unfortunately, considered as proprietary rights. - BUT THIS
SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE.

Industry should volunteer to give out data without any tag to research institutes
and standard setting bodies

j. Pest control more complex in tropics
Some are not considered as pests but in the west it is.

Only because resource infiastructure is not possible because of economic
constraints

' I agree to some extent.

In Tropics humidity is more and hence incidence of pests becomes more related to
humidity. But I do not think that the control of pests is complex. If we follow
traditional organic practices and use of bio-agents and integrated pests
management the issue becomes easier

k. Tolerances to be agreed on to reflect value of food trade between Asia
Pacific region and U.S.

Need practicable effective measures, equivalencies and reciprocal arrangements
that ensure safety not commercial expedients that could compromise food safety

This should be mutually settled on pure scientific consideration taking into account
ground realities

 

I. Standards are based on detectable criteria, not on implementable criteria.

In. Limited government framework (enforcement, regulations, laws,
resources) in developing countries

Sometimes yes, sometimes no

In some countries yes, but not all

 

Yes. This is reference to the national standards in countries in European Union,
US, Japan and other developed countries. That is why I say they are made
unnecessarily stringent with a motive to deter irrrports. The fiequent change in
standards are based on newer levels of detection

105

Round 11 Comments from Participants: CONTRAINTS (continued)

 

 

 

n: Difference in type of business mechanized vs. small operations.
Yes, I agree, Yes I agree.

Let me give an example. SOrne people think that mechanized milking of cows is
more hygienic. But let me tell you there are scientific case studies to show that
blood traces are found in suck milk. The cow's udder gets swelled and blood-
clotted. There are instances where small scale Operations are hygienic than
mechanized ones

Small operation can be just as effective in ensuring food safety as a large mech.
One and vice-versa

0. Systems for monitoring greatly affected by polities
Too many other factors.
Not so much politics but resources constraints

Yes, more so in developed world when trade is concerned

p. U.S. has a highly sophisticated food safety infrastructure a

I totally disagree on the issue of genuinely meeting US requirements on food
safety. US has sophisticated infrastructure. But the question is on food standards.
US has separate standards on pesticide residues for Mangoes and Grapes. Why the
limits of pesticide residues are different for these two fruits? What does it mean? It
is nothing but political!

 

 

106

APPENDIX J

Round 11 Comments from Participants: MECHANISMS

107

Round 11 Comments from Participants: MECHANISMS

a. Food and Drug Agencies (government) control all food sold.
Food and Drug Agencies (government) control all food sold.

Rather I would say government monitoring of food safety measures

b. Goods must be registered

What do you mean registered? Don’t know. Does this reflect that unless you need
to trade with US general info is not readily communicated as to policy

 

c. Food laws - mandatory
Food safety laws are mandatory, not a free for all.

Regulations and law are often non-existent in developing countries.

d. Group of Ministers have been established to resolve issues.

' Like setting up a committee-sometimes effective and sometimes futile
This is what often happens but it does not work

Let's hope for its outcome!

e. Technical assistance from developed countries.

YES, mutual interest and benefit-otherwise altruistic gestures
Yes in some situations but not all

Must be emphasized

f. Risk analysis training.
YES, yes.

Yes can assist but follow up needed to ensure enforcement/implementation

g. Building food recall systems.
Workable and not impractical-response in proportion to level of risk

Yes takes lots of resources though

 

h. Visit developing countries.

 

108

Comments from Participants: MECHANISMS (continued)

 

_l

L. Ban agricultural products that may pose a risk to human health.
To put a ban on product, it should require strong scientific evidence.
In specific instances

This does occur, but often a result of perceived versus real risk-need for expertise
in risk assessment

 

Be very carefirl--a1most everything can pose a risk

1. Intensify research when problems arise.

Before problems occur-proactive rather than reactive
Should happen more

Use value judgment, experience and current standards
Before problems occur-proactive rather than reactive
Should happen more

I think we should not wait from problems to arises before intensifying research, we
should tap all resources now before problem arises

k. When problems arise obtain expertise from other countries.

Developing countries need to do more of this-there is a cultural proudness that
prevents their authorities directly asking for assistance

Yes but we also have to do our own research to solve our problems

 

Rather I would say one should always be Open in seeking expert advice and for a
public debate

1. Review and adjust inspection systems, based on science.

On practical methods that consistently attain the desired results

 

109

Comments from Participants: MECHANISMS (continued)

- m Involve stakeholder participation (farmers, food industry, retail, consumers).

 

Responsrble stakeholder participation--avoid, political
This is what developing countries need to do
Focus on building partnerships to solve problems

I strongly agree to this. Also involvement of writers of food safety issues in more
important

 

n. Improve risk communication.
Validated, researched and sound risk communication not just posturing

0. Test chemical and microbes in food-domestic and imported.

' selective basis where and when risk is most likely to occur, random samples--not
enough resources

More is needed here-resources implications.

p. Legislation lobbying
Not an auto response

Lobbying for genuine food safety concern without any political or trade benefits

I q. Mass media.
Sometimes very appropriate-can cause panic

Involvement of mass media urgently needed

r. Food industry self-regulation.

Were appropriate, not in areas with poor compliance... But not for high risk
foods

5 But government agencies should also have regulations

3. Utilize experts (universities, professional groups, trade groups).

Relevant expertise, not just enabling self protection, also utilize writers on food
safety issues

 

 

 

110

Comments from Participants: MECHANISMS (continued)

 

 

t. Voluntary standards.

Standards in FOOD SAFETY should be MANDATORY - There is no question of
such standards being of voluntary compliance

1 think we Should have connnon standard
Mandatory standards for basic food safety, voluntary in excess of this.
Doesn’t work for high risk foods

u. Risk assessments are followed by risk management actions.

Yes, what’s the point of an ILA otherwise, though one outcome maybe no action
needed

v. Education and training of all stakeholders (farmers, consumers,
producers).

But with balance, validated, clear and consistent.

 

111

APPENDIX K

Countries Participating in Round 11]

112

Countries Participating in Round HI

Country

 

 

AUSTRALIA
CHINA
INDIA
INDONESIA
JAPAN
PHILIPPINES
THAILAND
USA
World Health Organization
Developing country = X, Developed Cormtry =0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O><><O><><><O

 

 

 

 

t—IQNNr—nr—st—at—aN‘}

 

113

BIBLIOGRAPHY

114

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I O-point regional strategy for food safety in the south-east Asia region. (2002,
May 22, 2002). Retrieved December 12, 2003, fi'om
http://w3.whoseaorg/techinfo/foodhtm

About APEC. (2003). Retrieved February 11, 2004, from
httpz/lwww.apecsec.org.sg/apec/about_apec.html

Aerni, P. (2002). Stakeholder attitudes toward the risk and benefits of agricultural

biotechnology in developing countries: a comparison between Mexico and
the Philippines. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1123-1137.

Agricultural biotechnology, poverty reduction, and food security. (2001). Asian
Development's Bank.

Anex, R. P., & Focht, W. (2002). Public participation in life cycle assessment‘and
risk assessment: a shared need. Risk Analysis, 22(5), 861-879.

Anonymous. (2004). Japan bans U.S. chicken imports after flu outbreak.
Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://news.myway

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction for research in
education (Vol. 6th). United States: Wadsworth.

Asian Development Outlook 2003. (2003). Hong Kong: Asian Development Bank.

Baldwin-Morgan, & Amelia, A. (1993). The impact of expert system audit tools
on auditing firms in the year 2001: A Delphi investigruion. Journal of .
Information Systems, 7(1), 16-34.

Blij, d., & Murphy, A., G. (2004). Human Geography: Culture, Society and Space
(7th ed): Wiley.

Boehnr, B. (2004). U.S. National Farm Policy and International Trade Agenda.
Lansing: Michigan Farm Bureau.

Borlaug, N. E. (2001). Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and
the threat of antiscience zealotry. Transactions, 89, 25-34.

Bren, L. (2003). Cloning: Revolution or Evolution in Animal Production? FDA
Consumer, 37(3).

115

Breth, S. A., Auerbach, J. A., & Benz, M. L. (Eds). (1999). The Future Stakes for
U.S. Food and Agriculture in East and Southeast Asia. Washington, DC:
National Policy Association.

Burfisher, M. E., & Zahniser, S. (2003). Multilateralism and regionalism dual
strzuegies for trade reform Amber Waves, 1(4), 22-29.

Busch, L. (1997). Grades and standards in the social construction of safe food.
Paper presented at the Social Construction of Safe Food, Norwegian
Technical University.

Buzby, J. (2001). Efi'ects of food-safety perceptions on food demand and global
trade. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service.

Buzby, J. C. (2001). Children and microbial foodbome illness. Food Review,
24(2), 31-37.

Byrd, D. M., & Cothem, C. R. (2000). Introduction to Risk Analysis. Rockville:
Government Institutes.

Carter, J. (1998, August 26). Who's Afiaid of Genetic Engineering? New York
Times, p. 2].

Chang, S.-I., & Gable, G. G. (2000). Major Issues with SAP F inancials in
Queensland Government. Paper presented at the Procwdings of the
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, California,
USA.

Chesworth, N. (1997). Food Hygiene Auditing. London: Blackies Academic.

Chiang, H. S., Kusnawiria, M., & Sawangduarrr, S. (2002). Safe use progress in
Asia. Agrolinks, 4(1), 11-12.

Codex Trust Fund. (2003, December 2003). Retrieved December 24, 2003, from
http://www.whO.int/foodsafety/codex/trustfimd/en/print.html

Cohen, J. I., Quemada, H., & Frederick, R. (2003). Food safety and GM crops:

implications for developing-country research (Brief No. 10). Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Committee. (2001). Discussion paper on the proposed drafl recommendations for
the control of Listeria monocytogenes in foods in international trade.
Retrieved April 7, 2003, from http://www.fao.org

116

Cook, R. J. (1994). Biotechnology for the public good (National Agricultural
Biotechnology Council report). East Lansing: USDA/CRS.

Coyle, W., Gilmour, B., & Armbruster, W. J. (2004). Where will demographics
take the Asia Pacific food system? Amber Waves, 2(3), 14-21.

Crutchfield, S., Buzby, J., Frenzen, P., Allshouse, J ., & Roberts, D. (2000). The
economics of food safety and international trade in food products. USDA
Economic Research Service, 1-9.

Czinkota, M. R., & Ronkainen, I. A. (1997). International business and trade in the
next decade: Report from Delphi Study. Journal of International Business
Studies, 28(4), 827-845.

Dalkey, N. C. (1970). Use of self-ratirrg to improve group estimates. Journal of
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1(3).

Dalkey, R., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi
method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniques
for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes:
Scott-Foresman and Conrpany.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys (2nd ed). New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Farber, J. M., & Todd, E. C. D. (2000). Safe handling of Foods. Ottawa Marcel
Dekker, Inc.

FDA protects the public health: ranks high in public trust. (2002, 2002). Retrieved
December 12, 2003, from www.fdagov

Fleck, L. (1997, 1997). Malaysia's diverse cultures offer challenges to importers.
Retrieved March 27, 2004, from
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1 : 197 17075&num
=20

Food Safety. (2003). Retrieved February 10, 2004, from
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety

F ood-bome disease: a focus for health education. (2000). Geneva: World Health
Organization.

Foreign agriculture trade of the U.S. (2001). 2003, from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/db/FATUS

117

Forsythe, S. J. (2000). The Microbiology of Safe Food. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Fox, C. E., & Hackney, C. (2003). Scientific criteria to ensure safe food.
Washington, DC: The National Academies.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines
trust in information about food-related risk? Underlying psychological
constructs. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 473-486.

Frewer, L. 1, Miles, 8., & Marsh, R. (2002). The media and genetically modified
foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis,
22(4), 701-711.

Garin, B., Spiegel A., Arrive, P., Bastarud, A. (2002). Multicenter study of street
foods. Journal of Food Protection, 65(1), 146-152.

Geller, G., Bernhardt, B. A., & Holtzrnan, N. A. (2002). The rmdia and public
reaction to genetic research. The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 287(6), 773.

Gerald, B. L., & Perkin, J. E. (2003). Position of the American Dietetic
Association: Food and water safety. Journal of The American Dietetic
Association, 103(9), 1203-1218.

Golzynski, D. L. (2001). Defining professionalism for dietetic education.
Published PhD, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Gould, A. (2000, 2000). Orient Express. Menu supplement to Nation's Rmtaurant
News, November, 16-17.

Hegarty, V. (2003). International Law. Interview C. Weir (Ed). East Lansing.

Henson, S. (2003). Food safety issues in food security and food trade (NO. 10).
Washington, DC: International food Policy Research Indicate.

Hiroshi, Yoshikura (2000). Task F orce on foods derived from biotechnology
(report No. Alinorm 01/34). Chiba: World Health Organization.

Huang, C. L., Kan, K, & Fu, T.-T. (1999). Consumer willingness-to-pay for food
safety in Taiwan: a binary-ordinal probit model of analysis. Journal of
Consumers Aflairs, 33(1), 76-91.

Huerta, E. E., & Macario, E. (1999). Communicating health risk to ethnic groups:

teaching Hispanics as a case study. Journal of the National Cancer
Indicate Monographs, 25, 23-26.

118

Hulebak, K L., & Schlosser, W. (2002). Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) history and conceptual overview. Risk Analysis, 22(2),
542-552.

Hutagalung, M. (2003, 2003). US-ASEAN Business Council. Retrieved March 27,
2004, fi'om http://www.us-asean.org/asean.asp

IFANCA. What is Halal? Retrieved April 18, 2004
Imai, S. (2004). Special Programme for Food Security (SPF S). Retrieved April 12,
2004

Implementation of initiatives to manage food safety. (2000). Retrieved December
29, 2003

International technical guidelines for safety in biotechnology. (1995). Rome:
United Nations Environmental Program

Jackson, L. A. B. (2001). Regulatory harmonization in international trading ‘
systems: the case of agricultural biotechnology labeling. Published Doctor
of Philosophy, University of Minnesota

J arratt, J., & Mahaffie, J. B. (2002). Key trends affecting the dietetics profession
and the American Dietetic Asso. Journal of The American Dietetic
Association, 102(12), S 1 820-S1839.

Kaferstein, F. K (2003). Food Safety as a public health issue for developing
countries. In L. J. Unnevehr (Ed), Food safety in food security and food
trade (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: International Food and Policy Research
Institute.

Khanum, S. (2001). Food Safety in South-East Asia Region (Report of a Regional
Consultation No. ICP PHE 001). New Delhi: World Health Organization.

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds). (1975). The Delphi Method techniques and
applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Lundgren, R., & McMakin, A. (1998). Risk Communication: A handbook for
Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks (Second Edition
ed.). Columbus: Battelle Press.

Making Your Voice Heard at FDA: How to Comment on Proposed Regulations

and Submit Petitions. (2003). Retrieved July 22, 2004, from
http:l/www.fda. goWopacorerackgrormderslvoicehtml

119

Mather, E. (2001, May 8). The science of pre-harvest food safety-bringing sound
science to the table, Michigan State University.

McCampbell, C., & Hehner, O. (1993). An experimental application of the Delphi
method to the use of experts. Rockleigh: Allyn and Bacon.

Mead, P. S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., et al. (1999). Food-related illness and death in
the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5, 607-625.

Meadows, M. (2004). The FDA and the fight against terrorism. FDA Consumer,
January-February, 104.

Medeiros, L., Hillers, V., & Kendall, P. (2001). Food Safety education: What
Should we teaching to consumers? Journal of Nutrition Education, 33(2),
1 08-1 1 3.

Medeiros, L., Kendall, P., Hillers, V., Chen, G., & DiMascola, S. (101).
Identification and classification of consumer food-handling behaviors for
food safety education. American Dietetic Association, 101(11), 1326-1339.

Medeiros, L, Kendall, P., Hillers, V., Chen, G., & DiMascola, S. (2001).
Identification and classification of consumer food-handling behaviors for
food safety education. American Dietetic Association, 101(11), 1326-1339.

Medeiros, L. C., Kendall, P., Hillers, V., Chen, G., & DiMascola, S. (2001).
Identification and classification of consumer food-handling behaviors for

food safety education. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
10101), 1326-1339.

Miles, M. B., & Hubermarr, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mills, R., & Hilt, M. (2003). U.S. Wins WT 0 Appeal on Japan's Restrictions on
U.S. Apples. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from
http://www. ustr.gov/releases/2003/ 1 2/03 -80.pdf

Moy, G. (2002). Codex, Food Safety and the World Health Organization
(Module). Geneva: Michigan State University.

Novartis. (1999, 1990). Food Security for a Growing World Population: 200 Years
After Malthus, Still An Unsolved Problem. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from
httpzl/www.foodsecmitynet/lrbrary/showlibphp3?19

Olson, J. 8., Olson, G. M., Stormsten, M., & Carter, M. (1993). Groupwork close
up: a comparison of the group design process with and without a Simple

120

group editor. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (T 01S), 11(4),
321-348.

Powell, D., & Leiss, W. (1997). Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. The perils of Poor
Risk Communication. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Proposed draft working principles for risk analysis. (2001). Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization.

Provision of Scientific Advice to Codex and Member Countries. (Report)(2004).
Geneva: FAO/WHO.

Rampton, S., & Stauber, J. (2001). Trust Us, We're Experts. New York: Putnam

Rangarajan, A., Bihn, E. A., Gravani, R. B., Scott, D. L., & Pritts, M. P. (1999).
Food Safety Begins on the Farm: A Grower's Guide. Cornell: Cornell
University.

Regmi, A. (2001). Changing structure of global food consumption and trade." an
introduction. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service-USDA.

Reisner, A. (1992). Tracing the linkages of world views, information handling, and
corrrrnunication vehicles. Agriculture and Human Values, 2, 4-16.

Reuber, A. R., Dyke, L. S., & Fischer, E. M. (1990). Using a tacit knowledge
methodology to define expertise. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
1990 ACM SIGBDP conference on trends and directions in expert systerrs,
Orlando.

Richardson, G. (2003, October 2003). Market Information. Retrieved February 11,
2004, from http://atn-riae.agr.ca/asean/welcome-e.htm

Roth, R. M., & Wood, W. C. (1990). A Delphi approach to acquiring knowledge
from single and multiple experts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
1990 ACM SIGBDP conference on trends and directions in expert systems,
Orlando, Florida, United States.

Ryser, E. (1999). Foodbome Listeriosis. In E. H. M. Elliot T. Ryser (Ed), Listeria,
Listeriosis, and Food Safety (pp. 299-358). New York: Marchel Dekker,
Inc.

Sanchez, P., & Escobar, C. G. (2000). The Delphi Method as a validation tool for

intangible measurement and disclosures guidelines. Retrieved October 21,
2003.

121

Schmidt, R, Lyytinen, K, Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software
project risks: An international Delphi study. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 17(4), 5-36.

Secretariat, W. (1998). The Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(Vol. 4). Geneva: World Trade Organization.

Sen, A. (2004, March). India Pushing For Separate Negotiating Body At WT 0.
Retrieved March 27, 2004, from
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=53924

Shand, H. J. (1994). Agricultural biotechnology and the Public Good (National
Agricultural Biotechnology Council report). East Lansing: Rural
Advancement Foundation International.

Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on
the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195-203.

Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: the role of social
trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713-719.

Singh, A., Singh, S., & Rao, 8. N. (2003). Integrated Pest Management in India In
K. M. Maredia, D. Dakouo & D. Mota-Sanchex (Eds), Integrated Pest
Management in the Global Arena (pp. 512). Oxford: CAB International.

Staatz, J. (2000). Strategic pathways and interactions to cutting hunger in half in
Afiica. Unpublished manuscript, East Lansing, Michigan.

Starr, C. (2003). The precautionary principle versus risk analysis. Risk Analysis,
23(1), 1-3.

Story, V., Hurdley, L., Smith, G., & Saker, J. (2001). Methodological and practical
implications of the Delphi technique in marketing decision-nraking: A re-
assessment. Marketing Review, 1 (4), 487-505.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK
Cambridge University Press.

Strongin, R. J. (2002). How vulnerable is the nations ' food supply? Linking food
safety and food security (No. 773). Washington, DC: National Health
Policy Forum

Struble, M. B., 8c Aonrari, L. L. (2003). Position of the American Dietetic

Association: Addressing world hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(8), 1046-1057.

122

Sub-regional representative for the Pacific. (2003, May-August 2003). SAPA
Newsletter, p. 1.

Tauxe, R. V. (1998). Emerging foodbome diseases: an evolving public health
challenge. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 3(4), 425 - 434.

Ten Eyck, T. (2000). Foodbome outbreaks in ethnic foods: exit, voice, and loyalty.
Journal for the Study of Food and Society, 4(2), 3-8.

Third Asian Conference on food safety and nutrition. (Executive summary)(2000).
Beijing: International Science Life Indicate.

Trail], W. B., Bedouin, R., Gourlie, K, Husch, J ., & Lustre, A. (2002). Evaluation
of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO food standards work.
Rome: FAO/WHO.

Unnevehr, L. J. (2003). Food safety in food security and food trade overview. In L.
J. Unnevehr (Ed), Food safety in food security and food trade (Vol. 1).
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

US-China Food Safety Accord. (2004). Retrieved June 10, 2004, from
http://www.statpub.com/Open/89635.phtml

Vital Links in our Cold Chain. (2002). Retrieved July 22, 2004, from
httpzl/wwwmcdonaldsindia com/coldchain.htm

Vogt, W. P. (1993). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: a nontechnical
guide for the social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Vries, J. d. (Ed). (1997). Food Safety and Toxicity. New York: CRC.
Weir, C. P. (2002, September 18-20, 2002). Communicating Food Safety Across

Cultures. Paper presented at the Thinking Globally-Working Locally,
Orlando, Florida.

WHO. (1984). The role of food safety in health and development (Teclmical
Report No. 705): Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Safety.

Wilhelm, V. (2003). Capacity Building. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from
http://www.worldbank.org/capacity/Zdefinitionshtm

WTO. (2001). Agencies to boost developing countries participation in setting food

safety and related norms. Retrieved November 29, 2003, from
http://www.wto.org/english/news

123

WTO. (2002). The World Trade Organization (Fact File). Geneva: World Trade
Organization.

Yuen, C. (2004). Hong Kong Temporarily Bans Poultry Imports From China

(GAINS report NO. HK4003). Hong Kong: USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service. International trade agenda, Senate (2004).

124

   

Illlllfllljllllllllljljfll11111le