Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T12:51:36.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Determining a Science-based Food Safety Objective/Appropriate Level of Protection for Application in Developing Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Abstract

When determining the Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP) in food safety law, developed countries rely on the Food Safety Objective (FSO) to meet the requirements of World Trade Organization (WTO) law and to provide a high level of protection based on insights from food safety science. Implementing an FSO/ALOP is resource-intensive and costly. Developing countries who would like to provide similar levels of protection are restricted by limited resources and often face difficulties implementing such an FSO-based ALOP. As a consequence, developing countries may base their ALOP on other legally acceptable reasons, which are non-scientific and less effective. We illustrate a less resource-intensive way to implement the FSO in the ALOP, which enables developing countries to design an ALOP that is based on food safety science. Depending on the resources available in the respective country, we map different possibilities to determine a science-based FSO/ALOP concept for developing countries, which also takes into account the requirements of WTO law.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Law and Governance Group, Wageningen University and Research, Hollandseweg 1, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands; National Agency of Drug and Food Control of Indonesia (NADFC), Percetakan Negara, 23, 10560, Jakarta, Indonesia.

**

Law and Governance Group, Wageningen University and Research, Hollandseweg 1, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

References

2 WHO, “Food Safety” (2016), available at <http://www.who.int/topics/food_safety/en/> (accessed 30 March 2017).

3 Gorris, LG, “Food safety objective: an integral part of food chain management” (2005) 16(9) Food Control 801 Google Scholar et sqq.

4 T Van de Venter, “Emerging food-borne diseases: a global responsibility” (FAO, 2000) <http://www.fao.org/3/a-x7133m/x7133m01.pdf> (accessed 18 April 2017) p 26.

5 Van der Meulen, B, “The Global Arena of Food Law: Emerging Contours of a Meta-framework” (2010) 3(4) Erasmus Law Review 217 Google Scholar.

6 WTO-Apppellate Body, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (Report of the Appellate Body, 2008).

7 Atik, J, On the Efficiency of Health Measures and the “Appropriate Level of Protection” (Edward Elgar 2011) 1 Google Scholar.

8 Unnevehr, L, “Food safety in developing countries: Moving beyond exports” (2015) 4 Global Food Security 24 Google Scholar.

9 See, for the pros and cons of these effects, D Sinopoli and K Purnhagen, “When Life Gives You Lemons: The Dispute on the Correct Interpretation of Data on the Citrus Black Spot Disease between the European Union and South Africa according to the SPS Agreement” (2017, forthcoming) Trade, Law and Development.

10 CDC, “Risk Management Plan” (2006) available at <http://www2a.cdc.gov/cdcup/library/templates/CDC_UP_Risk_Management_Plan_Template.doc> (accessed 30 March 2017).

11 WTO, “Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures” (1995) <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm> (accessed 18 April 2017).

12 See, for a more elaborate assessment, Du, MM, “Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO law: Rhetoric or Reality?” (2010) 13 Journal of International Economic Law 1 Google Scholar et sqq; Atik, supra note 7.

13 Paragraph 5 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement defines ALOP as “the level of protection deemed appropriate by Member establishing a sanitary or phytosanitary measure to protect human, animal or plant health within its territory”.

14 On the risks of and reasons for extrapolating from WTO case law to general WTO law, see Sinopoli, D and Purnhagen, KP, “Reversed Harmonization or Horizontalization of EU Standards?: Does WTO Law Facilitate or Constrain the Brussels Effect?” (2016) 34 Wisconsin International Law Journal 97 Google Scholar; Downes, C, The Impact of WTO SPS Law on EU Food Regulations vol 2 (Springer Science & Business Media 2014) 110111 Google Scholar.

15 WTO Appellate Body, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (Report of the Appellate Body, 1998) para 205.

16 ibid.

17 ibid.

18 E Reid, “Risk Assessment, Science and Deliberation: Managing Regulatory Diversity under the SPS Agreement?” (2012) 3(4) EJRR 535.

19 Du, supra note 12.

20 Howse, R, “Democracy, Science, and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization” (2000) 98 Michigan Law Review 2329 Google Scholar.

21 WTO, “European Communities – EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) – AB-1997-4-Report of the Appellate Body” (1998), para 172. See supra note 15, para 125; Reid, supra note 18.

22 Du, supra note 12.

23 ibid.

24 WTO Panel, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon – Recourse to Article 21.5 by Canada (Panel Report 2000) para 129.

25 Government of Malaysia, “Foodborne disease monitoring and surveillance systems” (FAO/WHO 2004), available at <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/006/J2381E.pdf> (accessed 30 March 2017).

26 See Atik, supra note 7, who stipulates that in practice of dispute settlement Members “promulgate idiosyncratic measures and then ex-post seek to justify them by telling a story of careful legislative deliberation (which likely never happened)”.

27 See WTO Panel Report, supra note 24, para. 129.

28 Havelaar, AH, Nauta, MJ and Jansen, JT, “Fine-tuning food safety objectives and risk assessment” (2004) 93(1) International Journal of Food Microbiology 11 Google Scholar et sqq; Rieu, E and others, “Food safety objectives should integrate the variability of the concentration of pathogen” (2007) 27(2) Risk Analysis 373 Google Scholar.

29 ICMSF, “A Simplified Guide to Understanding and Using Food Safety Objectives and Performance Objectives” (2006), available at <http://www.icmsf.org/pdf/FSO%20Ojectives/GuiaSimplificadoEnglish.pdf> p 5 (accessed 30 March 2017).

30 Gkogka, E and others,“The application of the Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP) and Food Safety Objective (FSO) concepts in food safety management: using Listeria monocytogenes in deli meats as a case study” (2013) 29(2) Food Control 382 Google Scholar.

31 ibid.

32 Art. 10 of the SPS Agreement.

33 WHO, ‘Access to Data in Health Information Systems’ (Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2005) <http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/8/editorial20805html/en/> (accessed 18 April 2017).

34 Gkogka, E and others, “Risk assessment strategies as a tool in the application of the Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP) and Food Safety Objective (FSO) by risk managers” (2013) 167(1) International Journal of Food Microbiology 8 Google Scholar.

35 Lake, RJ and others, “Risk ranking for foodborne microbial hazards in New Zealand: burden of disease estimates” (2010) 30(5) Risk Analysis 743 Google Scholar; Hoffmann, S, “Ensuring Food Safety around the Globe: The many roles of risk analysis from risk ranking to Microbial risk assessment” (2010) 30(5) Risk Analysis 711 Google Scholar; Angulo, FJ and others, “World Health Organization ranking of antimicrobials according to their importance in human medicine: a critical step for developing risk management strategies for the use of antimicrobials in food production animals” (2009) 49(1) Clinical Infectious Diseases 132 Google Scholar.

36 De Swarte, C and Donker, R, “Towards an FSO/ALOP based food safety policy” (2005) 16 Food Control 825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Gkogka and others, supra note 34.

38 ICMSF, supra note 29.

39 ibid.

40 De Swarte and Donker, supra note 36.

41 Gkogka and others, supra note 34.

42 ICMSF, supra note 29.

43 Art. 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L31, p1, 1/02/2002.

44 ICMSF, Microorganisms in Foods: Microbiological Testing in Food Safety Management (Springer US 2002) 290 Google Scholar.

45 FAO, “Within the Concept of HACCP, Critical Limit is Defined as A criterion which Separates Acceptability from Unacceptability” (1997), available at <http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y1579e/y1579e03.htm> (accessed 30 March 2017).

46 See ICMSF, supra note 29, 9.

47 RMP is an Information Communication Technology (ICT) base program. The program uses web-based software. The participant (food manufacturer) can upload RMP documents and the documents are saved in a database. The authority can verify the documents and provide a real time progress of the process online. Indonesia has been implementing this system since 2015. NADFC, “Risk Management Program” (2016), available at <http://pmr.pom.go.id/index.php> (accessed 30 March 2017).

48 M Cole, “Food Safety Objectives – Concept and Current Status” [ICMSF] 36th Symposium of the Swiss Society of Food Hygiene 13.

49 Weygandt, JJ, Kimmel, PD and Kieso, DE, Managerial Accounting: Tools for Business Decision Making (John Wiley & Sons 2009) 220 Google Scholar.

50 This is recognised in numerous provisions in WTO law, most prominently in GATT, Part IV on Trade and Development.