animalagriculture.org

Animal Production Food Safety Committee
April 8, 2003 

Meeting called to order at 8:15 am by Jerry Gillespie

Introductions of those in attendance.

23 persons attended the session.

Approval of agenda

Presentation of food safety and security issues (PowerPoint) by J. Gillespie

Discussion of general issues:

• Risk assessment value in food safety and food security.  Risk assessment not well developed for food safety and security.  Committee discussed the value of improving risk assessment techniques.

• Discussion of determining “whose in charge” during a food safety incident or following a bio-terrorist assault on food system.  Acknowledged that local response most important, but can be slowed by federal intrusion.  There is a need to increase cooperation between federal, state and local authorities in developing response plans, and in sorting out specific responsibilities for each phase.  Concern was expressed with the current level of secrecy that exist in the federal government relating to food safety/security policy development. 

• Concern expressed with the lack of connection between agriculture and public health as it relates to food safety/security.  There is a need for more individuals who have a more comprehensive view of the food systems, food safety initiatives, and food biosecurity policies and responses.

• Concern was expressed with the adequacy of US-produced foods which are produce under generally sound food safety principles.  If this adequacy is decreased for any reason, there will be an increased dependency on foreign produced food, which may or may not be produced with adequate food safety practices. 

• Committee emphasized the need to broaden the scope of food safety to include food biosecurity.  There was general agreement that many of the food safety and food security practices or innovations are important to both areas, and that improvement of food security will depend upon fundamental principles used in food safety programs at all levels in the food continuum. 

• Discussion of the importance of communication within segments of the food system, but very importantly how the food system constituents communicate with the media.  Many of the improvements in food safety/security practices can be achieved by carefully communicating the needs to the media, which overtime will enable the food safety messages to be delivered to all segments of the public. 

• Discussion ensued on how the public and private sectors can balance the needs for “private gain” vs. “public good.”  Decisions within the business community, by necessity, are based upon “cost/benefit” analysis, which may or may not facilitate decisions that might be in the publics best interests.  It was generally acknowledge that in most circumstances the “publics good” will be achieved when it is coincidental to the private gain.  There are however exceptions when there is a disaster (e.g., the terrorist acts of “9-11”, when changes in practices were imposed on the airline industry that were in the publics good but did not benefit the profitability of the airlines).

Discussions resolutions:

We recommended the following:

1. To drop three

2. Amended four.

3. Reaffirmed one

4. Introduced two

Discussion of future actions and directions of the Committee:

In future annual Committee meetings the following were suggested topics:

• Follow up on progress at the Federal level on food safety/security initiatives

• Follow up on action taken in response to food safety/security NIAA resolutions

• Follow up on food safety/security education initiative by Will Hueston

• Follow up on the progress being made by the various food safety/security institutions/centers and efforts to combine their efforts by Will Hueston

• John Ragan asked for follow-up on how FSIS might best address on-farm food safety initiatives.

• Gary Marsh to discuss how to bring the private sector more immediately into the discussions of food safety/security.  The example given was the extraordinary changes that occurred in Coca Cola following the “product tampering” the company experienced in Europe.

There was an expressed desire for Committee to be pro-active, with continued activity between annual meetings.  For example, there was a need to follow up on issues such as progress on on-farm quality assurance programs (certification updates).

Similarly, there is a need to encourage discussions across all segments of the industry (animal and plant foods, federal and state, private and public, all segments of production agriculture with all other segments) as it relates to food safety/security issues.  There needs to be follow up on these issues between meetings that translates to steps to improve “real communication.” 

A communications subcommittee was appointed under the chairmanship of Harry Snelson, with members, Marty Goldberg, Will Hueston, Gary Marsh, and John Ragan to pursue a structure of a program to enhance communication on food safety/security issues across all segments of the food system.  The Subcommittee is to report on progress to the Chair, Jerry Gillespie in 60 days.  Click here to view report.

In attendance

NIAA Members:   

Non-Members: