New Science for Food Safety: Supporting Regional Collaboration

New science for food safety:
supporting food chain transparency for improved health
Report of the INFOSAN meeting on regional perspectives
of food science developments in Asia
7-10 November 2016
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
1
Jorgen Schlundt (Prof.), 1
Patricia Conway (Prof.), 1
Natasha Yang (Dr), 1
Moon Tay Yue Feng (Dr),
1
Kelyn Seow Lee Ghee, 1
Shi Jiahua (Dr), 1
Guo Siyao, 1
Zhong Yang, 2
Martin Heilmann, 2
Masami
Takeuchi, 3
Peter Ben (Dr), 3
Carmen Savelli
Organized by NTU Food Technology Centre (NAFTEC); Co-Sponsored by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nation (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO)

New science for food safety:
supporting food chain transparency for improved health
Report of the INFOSAN meeting on regional perspectives
of food science developments in Asia
7-10 November 2016
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Jorgen Schlundt1
, Patricia Conway1
, Natasha Yang1
, Moon Tay Yue Feng1
, Kelyn Seow Lee
Ghee1
, Shi Jiahua1
, Guo Siyao1
, Zhong Yang1
, Martin Heilmann2
, Masami Takeuchi2
, Peter Ben
Embarek3
, Carmen Savelli3
Organized by 1
NAFTEC; Co-Sponsored by the 2
FAO and 3
WHO

Published in 2017 by NTU Food Technology Centre (NAFTEC)
Nanyang Technological University
62, Nanyang Drive,
Singapore 637459
http://coe.ntu.edu.sg/Research/naftec
Jorgen Schlundt
Director, Nanyang Technological University Food Technology Centre (NAFTEC)
Michael Fam Chair Professor, Food Science and Technology, College of Engineering, Nanyang
Technology University
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this report do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the NAFTEC concerning the legal or development status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have
been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by NAFTEC in preference
to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this report are those of the
presenters and participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of NAFTEC.
ISBN: 978-981-11-3189-9
© Text 2017 Nanyang Technological University
All rights reserved. Reproduction or dissemination of the materials in this publication is encouraged by
NAFTEC. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private
study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that
appropriate acknowledgement of NAFTEC as the source and copyright holder is given and that
NAFTEC’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should
be made via http://coe.ntu.edu.sg/Research/naftec or addressed to naftec@ntu.edu.sg.
Printed in Singapore

iii
Contents
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………… v
Acronyms……………………………………………………………. vi
Executive Summary…………………………………………………. 1
1. Introduction……………………………………………………….. 4
1.1 Meeting background
1.2 Meeting composition
1.3 Opening remarks
1.4 Meeting objectives
2. Plenary Session 1: Foodborne Disease Burden…………………. 7
2.1 Foodborne disease burden – overview of the present picture and outcome of FERG
2.2 Epidemiological utility of foodborne disease burden estimates
2.3 Foodborne disease burden - its application to countries
2.4 Attributing the disease burden to different food groups – will it be easier in the future?
2.5 The complementary roles of quantitative disease burden attribution, expert elicitation and
predictive modelling for priority-setting in regulatory agencies and in industry
2.6 One Health Platform in Singapore
2.7 Summary of Session 1 Plenary Discussion
2.8 Summary of potential for regional use of foodborne disease burden estimates in food science
and food regulation (feedback from group discussions)
3. Plenary Session 2: Risk Assessment and Sustainability…......... 13
3.1 Using stochastic modelling in microbiological risk assessment – practical examples
3.2 WHO Risk assessment work, the Vibrio examples
3.3 Getting started on risk ranking: a guided approach
3.4 Addressing and assessing food safety risks at primary production
3.5 Quantitative sustainability assessment – modelling the life cycle of the food products
3.6 Sustainability of food production and food safety/security improvements
4. Plenary Session 3: Next Generation (DNA) Sequencing………. 18
4.1 Advancing Food Safety and Public Health through Shared WGS Networks and Data
4.2 Collaborative Management Platform for detection and Analyses of (Re-) emerging and
foodborne outbreaks in Europe
4.3 Applications of WGS for food safety management
4.4 The development of WGS in food safety investigations in China
4.5 Implementing WGS as a tool to strengthen FDB surveillance and response systems: WHO
Country guidance and tools

iv
4.6 Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection
Control in an Institutional Setting
4.7 The PulseNet model for NGS surveillance
4.8 Genome Trakr – increasing outbreak investigation potential dramatically through NGS
4.9 Suggesting a global system of all whole genome sequences of all microorganisms in the world
4.11 Summary on for regional collaboration on NGS in food science and food regulation
(feedback from group discussions)
5. Plenary Session 4: Novel Food Technology…………………….. 27
5.1 International Efforts to combat food fraud
5.2 Food fraud Prevention: Policy, Strategy, and Decision-Making
5.3 Food preference, integrity, authenticity and fraud mitigation
5.4 Food authenticity and fraud, Asian initiatives for prevention
5.5 Summary of Session 4 Discussion
6. Plenary Session 5: The Role of INFOSAN……………………... 30
6.1 Perspectives from Indonesia
6.2 Perspectives from Canada
6.3 Perspectives from Singapore
6.4 Perspectives from Vietnam
6.5 Perspectives from Australia
6.6 Perspectives from New Zealand
7. Plenary Session 6: Meeting Conclusion and Future Outlook… 35
8. Participant Evaluation…………………………………………... 36
8.1 Next Generation Sequencing Meeting Session
8.2 Next Generation Sequencing Training Workshop
Annex 1 – Meeting agenda…………………………………………. 38
Annex 2 – Workshop agenda………………………………………. 42
Annex 3 – Pre and post NGS session questionnaire……………… 44
Annex 4 – Workshop evaluation form…………………………….. 46
Annex 5 – Participants…………………………………………....... 49

v
Acknowledgements
The Nanyang Technological University Food Technology Centre (NAFTEC) wishes to express its sincere
thanks to all those who contributed to the success of this meeting. In particular, we wish to extend our
gratitude to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Department of
Food Safety and Zoonoses at the World Health Organization (WHO) for their co-sponsorship of the event.
We must also acknowledge our excellent team of staff at NAFTEC, in particular Natasha Yang, Moon
Tay Yue Feng and Kelyn Seow Lee Ghee who worked tirelessly in preparation for, delivery and reporting
of the meeting. Additional appreciation is expressed to the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of
Singapore (AVA) for hosting a special welcome dinner for participants and to the Singapore Ministry of
Health and the National Environment Agency for their support. Finally, we also wish to express our
sincere thanks to all participants and presenters for their valuable technical input, contributions and
collegiality during the meeting.

vi
Acronyms
AIDS/HIV Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome/Human Immunodeficiency Virus
AMR Antimicrobial resistance
ARAC ASEAN Risk Assessment Centre
AVA Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S)
CFU Colony-forming unit
DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
EHEC Enterohemorrhagic E.coli
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations
FBD Foodborne Diseases
FERG WHO Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group
FDA Food and Drug Administration (U.S)
FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service
FSMA Food Safety Modernization Act
GBS Group B Streptococcus
GHP Good Hygiene Practice
GMI Global Microbial Identifier
HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IFAAO International Food Authenticity Assurance Organization
IHR International Health Regulations
INFOSAN International Food Safety Authorities Network
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KTPG Knowledge Translation and Policy Group
LCA Life-cycle Assessment
MDR Multidrug resistant
MLST Multi locus sequence typing
MOH Ministry of Health
MRA Microbial risk assessment
MRSA Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
NAFTEC Nanyang Technological University Food Technology Centre
NCBI National Center for Biotechnology Information
NEA National Environment Agency
NGS Next Generation Sequencing

vii
NTU Nanyang Technological University
OHCC One Health Coordinating Committee
OHWG One-Health Working Group
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health
PAHO Pan American Health Organization
PFGE Pulsed-field Gel Electrophoresis
QALY Quality Adjusted Life Years
RA Risk assessment
SAR, China Special Administrative Region of China
SCELSE Singapore Centre on Environmental Life Sciences Engineering
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary
TAT Turn-around times
US United States (of America)
WGS Whole genome sequencing
WHO World Health Organization

1
Executive Summary
Introduction
In recent years, several new and important scientific developments have emerged with significant
implications for the future of food production and food safety and will directly impact the future of food
chain transparency and solutions to ensure a safe food supply. In November 2015, the World Health
Organization (WHO), in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), convened a meeting in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR, China) on strengthening
the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) and national food safety systems in Asia
with participation from INFOSAN members from the region. One of the outcomes from this meeting was
recognition of the need to seriously consider how the potential application of new technologies should
be framed within the context of globalization and the increasingly complex global food chain. The
meeting also emphasized the need for continued strengthening of INFOSAN and national food safety
systems in Asia, including in the areas of foodborne disease surveillance, laboratory capacity and multi-
sectoral coordination.
In response to the needs identified at the INFOSAN meeting in 2015, the Nanyang Technological
University Food Technology Centre (NAFTEC) hosted an international meeting titled, New science for
food safety: supporting food chain transparency for improved health, bringing together expert facilitators
and participants from more than 30 countries in the Americas, Europe, Oceania and Asia, to discuss
regional perspectives of food science developments in Asia.
Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to facilitate discussion between food safety regulators, academics,
INFOSAN members and laboratory scientists in order to exchange information on recent scientific
advancements related to food science and risk assessment including the utilization of foodborne disease
burden estimates, the application of next generation sequencing (NGS) in food safety, risk assessment
and sustainability and food fraud. The meeting was also intended to provide an opportunity for
discussion on the role of INFOSAN and the implications of new technologies/initiatives for the detection
and response to food safety emergencies and mitigation of foodborne disease. The meeting focused on
four major subjects where new scientific developments are already resulting in major changes to food
science and food regulatory systems in other parts of the world, including in Europe and the Americas.
The direct interaction between regulatory authorities and scientific research agencies and institutions has
developed rapidly in both the EU and the North-American systems and are generally supported by the
relevant international organizations (FAO and WHO).
Plenary Session 1: Foodborne Disease Burden
In a number of disease areas, efforts are prioritized through the application of science-based estimations
of disease burden, typically assessed through the use of 'Disability Adjusted Life Years'(DALYs). This
approach enables objective comparison of different disease complexes. In the area of foodborne diseases,
efforts lead by the WHO has focused on providing the first global estimates of foodborne disease burden,
culminating in the release of a report in December 20151
, with global and regional estimates. The
regional application of tools for this type of estimation and comparison will enable a focused, science-
based and coordinated approach. During this session, experts involved in the development of the global
1
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/foodborne-diseases/ferg/en/

2
FBD burden estimates presented the various applications from the perspective of their own country-
context. Facilitated group discussions elicited feedback on the potential for regional use of FBD burden
estimates in food science and food regulation.
Plenary Session 2: Risk Assessment and Sustainability
The capacity to model in areas with major inherent uncertainties has resulted in a general move from
deterministic to stochastic risk assessments. This has been the background for the recent developments
in microbiological risk assessment, which come at a time when technologies enable novel use of side-
streams in food production, for example through significantly improved extraction capacity for both
proteins and carbohydrates. During this session, experts explained how such developments can improve
the production efficiency and sustainability of food production chains and at the same time enable the
use of new data in decision-support systems based on stochastic modelling for an integrated assessment
of risks, benefits and sustainability of food production throughout the food chain.
Plenary Session 3: Next Generation (DNA) Sequencing
The emergence of the novel 'Next Generation DNA Sequencing' (NGS) will enable direct, real-time,
linkages of microbiological data between primary production, food sector and clinical sector, in effect
enabling a better One Health perspective relative to food production and prevention of foodborne disease
locally, regionally and globally. Of particular importance is the fact that this new technology not only
can drive change in relation to more efficient foodborne disease prevention and outbreak detection, it
can also lead to food technology and food quality improvements (using positive microbiology) as well
as to better food chain traceability, based on a novel capacity to share large volumes of relevant data
around the globe. During this session, experts from the Americas, Europe and Asia provided the latest
developments and applications of whole genome sequencing (WGS) in food safety. Facilitated group
discussions elicited feedback on ideas for potential collaboration related to NGS in food science and food
regulation in the region and beyond.
Plenary Session 4: Novel Food Technology – food fraud detection and prevention
The addition of microorganisms (probiotics) and chemical substances (prebiotics) to food has received
a great deal of attention, for their potential alleviation to a long list of non-communicable (obesity,
diabetes, cardio-vascular disease) and communicable diseases. Linked to such developments are also the
issues around health claims and ways of assessing them, an area presently receiving significant interest
in Europe and North America. These issues also have significant implications for the rapid rise in internet
sales of food and associated challenges, as well as food fraud and the new methods to combat these.
Communication about quality, risk, benefit, nutrition and safety need to be clear and simple – and
preferably consistent across borders. During this session, experts from academia, industry and
international organizations presented some of the latest trends in food fraud detection techniques.
Discussion during plenary reiterated the importance of this area as an emerging issue that requires due
attention, with an apparent need for international agreement about how national information on food
fraud can be shared across borders.
Plenary Session 5: Role of INFOSAN
The INFOSAN Secretariat opened the session with some introductory remarks about INFOSAN and the
ways in which members communicate, highlighting the use of the INFOSAN Community Website as a
platform for information exchange. Six panelists including INFOSAN Emergency Contact Points, Focal
Points, and Advisory Group members discussed the role of INFOSAN with respect to the implications of

3
new technologies and initiatives for the prevention, detection and response to international food safety
emergencies. Several panelists, with the use of case studies, discussed how we must adapt our systems,
work collaboratively, and think creatively to stay current and keep food safe with a rapidly changing global
food supply. Themes from the meeting were tied together to showcase how INFOSAN is or can be used
as a platform to communicate during food safety emergencies, improve national multi-sectoral
collaboration, and share information that could be useful to INFOSAN members around the globe to keep
food safe.
Panelists shared experiences with meeting participants to illustrate INFOSAN in action during food safety
emergencies in Asia and beyond. Panelists also shared their thoughts on future directions in light of new
scientific and technological advances and initiatives that were discussed during the previous sessions of
the meeting. The session served as a capstone to the meeting, and provided the INFOSAN Secretariat with
some parting wisdom on how to best utilize INFOSAN in the region and globally in a changing world. By
sharing examples of best practices in their respective countries, and tying these to INFOSAN aims,
panelists demonstrated to participants what has worked in their respective national context and made
suggestions on how other INFOSAN members may engage in the future.
Conclusions and Future Outlook
Overall, it was concluded that the meeting:
1. Provided a unique forum for knowledge exchange between food safety regulators, scientists
INFOSAN members and academicians from Asia, Europe, Oceania, Africa and the Americas
with a focus on new scientific developments in food science and risk assessment
2. Facilitated the understanding of new scientific developments including the application of NGS
technology for food safety and highlighted important areas for potential regional collaboration
in Asia to improve food safety in the region and beyond
3. Provided the opportunity for participants to debate the systematic use of a risk analysis
framework including science-based, independent risk assessment and new foodborne disease
burden estimates to prioritize and focus food safety and food control action
4. Highlighted the utility of INFOSAN in the region for identifying and responding to food safety
emergencies, and identified several ways in which INFOSAN can be strengthened in the region
and beyond through actions taken by members as well as by FAO and WHO
5. Emphasized the need for regional efforts to continue fostering collaboration between food safety
regulators and scientists in the future, and INFOSAN could play an important part by
encouraging information-sharing on relevant training opportunities, best practices and lessons
learned, and by facilitating information exchange on relevant food safety issues

4
1. Introduction
1.1 Meeting background
Several new and important scientific developments have emerged in recent years, with significant
implications for the future of food production and food safety. Such developments will directly impact the
future food chain transparency and solutions to ensure a safe food supply.
In November 2015, the WHO in collaboration with FAO, convened a meeting in Hong Kong SAR (China)
on strengthening INFOSAN and food safety systems in Asia with participation from INFOSAN members
from the region. One of the outcomes from this meeting was a recognition of the need to seriously consider
how the potential application of new technologies should be framed within the context of globalization
and the increasingly complex global food chain. The meeting also emphasized the need for continued
strengthening of INFOSAN and national food safety systems in Asia, including in the areas of foodborne
disease surveillance, laboratory capacity and multi-sectoral coordination.
Facilitating a functional link between national food safety authorities responsible for regulatory action in
food production and scientific institutions (primarily universities) in the region, would enable a faster and
more consistent introduction of new internationally recognized, science-based developments in this area.
Furthermore, the internationally adopted food safety risk analysis principles as elaborated by the
FAO/WHO suggest independent scientific advice as the basis for food safety risk management and food
control. The advancement of food science and applied technologies in Asia opens new possibilities for
regional collaboration in support of scientific and regulatory development. The recent creation of the
ASEAN Risk Assessment Centre (ARAC) is just one example of such development.
With the aforementioned details in mind, the Nanyang Technological University Food Technology Centre
(NAFTEC) organized an international meeting titled, New Science for Food Safety: supporting food chain
transparency for improved health, to discuss regional perspectives of food science developments in Asia.
1.2 Meeting composition
The meeting was attended by members of INFOSAN, including Emergency Contact Points, Focal Points
and Advisory Group members, as well as other participants from more than 30 countries in Asia and
Oceania as well as from Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Regulatory, academic and laboratory sectors
were each represented. The meeting was co-sponsored by FAO and WHO and was represented by officers
from the headquarters of each respective organization, as well as from the FAO Regional Office for Asia
and the Pacific.
1.3 Opening remarks
Professor Freddy Boey, NTU Provost, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Professor Boey opened the meeting by reminding participants of the need for efficient and sustainable
food production to ensure food security. The importance of foodborne illness was also recognized in the
context of the estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases. Professor Boey suggested the need
for a new paradigm to address food safety challenges in a changing world and indicated that INFOSAN
can be used for exchanging ideas on innovative solutions. NAFTEC was described as a forward thinking

5
centre for innovation that works jointly with international partners to improve build-up and exchange of
new scientific technology in support of the safety of food in Singapore and beyond. Participants were also
informed that within the Singapore Centre on Environmental Life Sciences Engineering (SCELSE),
research scientists are applying the latest scientific advancements to explore the application of NGS
technology. Professor Boey concluded his remarks by indicating through the utilization of foodborne
disease burden estimates, the application of NGS in food safety, risk assessment and sustainability and
food fraud, we can make progress in ensuring a safer and more sustainable global food supply.
Ms Tan Poh Hong, Chief Executive Officer, Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore
(AVA)
Ms Tan reiterated the importance of food safety for all people. She explained that because of the
globalization of trade, food safety cannot be dealt with any one country alone. Food safety authorities were
acknowledged as uniquely positioned to ensure food safety domestically and also abroad in accordance
with international regulations. To ensure food safety, Ms Tan emphasized the need for information sharing.
She also highlighted the role of novel technologies and the importance of understanding the food safety
implications of these. The need for knowledge exchange between regulators and scientists was emphasized
in the context of rising concerns for food safety. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was discussed as one
area of rapidly increasing importance that certainly requires collaboration across multiple sectors. The One
Health approach was described as a method employed by the (AVA) to address cross cutting issues,
keeping in line with the motto, “Together, let’s keep food safe”. Finally, Ms Tan concluded by recognizing
that INFOSAN is an excellent network through which to share experience and exchange knowledge
between members.
Dr Peter K. Ben Embarek, INFOSAN Programme Manager, WHO
Dr Ben Embarek explained to participants that the INFOSAN Secretariat is monitoring events on a daily
basis, examining trends and identifying new challenges related to food safety at an international level. The
four themes of the meeting: foodborne disease burden, risk assessment and sustainability, Next Generation
DNA Sequencing and novel food technology, address the main challenges that the global food safety
community is facing. It was recognized that new tools, such as the application of NGS, are already being
successfully utilized for food safety purposes in some places. Dr Ben Embarek emphasized the need for
joint efforts to address new challenges and the importance of collaborating across sectors.
Ms Shashi Sareen, Senior Advisor, Food Safety and Quality, FAO
Ms Sareen reflected on the title of the meeting, New Science for Food Safety, and emphasized the
importance of introducing novel technologies in countries of the region. She also recognized the ASEAN
Risk Assessment Centre and the important role that such a centre can play within the region. INFOSAN
was described as an integral part of the FAO Emergency Prevention System for Food Safety (EMPRES
Food Safety) programme which emphasizes the importance of early warning and rapid alert systems. Ms
Sareen briefed that 33rd FAO Regional Conference for the Asia and the Pacific held earlier in the year
had identified Gender, One Health, Climate Change, food safety and nutrition as priority areas for the
region and FAO specifically aims to focus on two areas in the coming years in the region, namely One-
Health and Climate Change, amongst others. The MOU signed in June 2015 between FAO and the
government of Singapore, which provides a framework for cooperation with the overall goal of fostering
institutional capacity development, technology and experience transfer was also referred to. Ms Sareen
also mentioned the recent meeting of the Codex Committee Asia which met in September 2016, during
which AMR and NGS were discussed as priority areas needing additional focus.

6
1.4 Meeting objectives
The meeting had four objectives, including to:
1. Provide a unique forum for knowledge exchange between food safety regulators and food safety
scientists from Asia, Europe and the Americas with a focus on new scientific developments in food
science and risk assessment;
2. Facilitate the uptake of new scientific advances including a training on NGS and improve regional
collaboration in Asia in order to bolster the safety and efficiency of the regional – and global – food
supply chain;
3. Discuss the role of INFOSAN and identify implications of new technologies/initiatives for the
detection and response to food safety emergencies and mitigation of foodborne disease outbreaks and
food fraud to share with the INFOSAN community; and
4. Debate the systematic use of a risk analysis framework including science-based, independent risk
assessment and new foodborne disease burden estimates to prioritize and focus food safety and food
control action.

7
2. Plenary Session 1: Foodborne Disease Burden
2.1 The Global Burden of Foodborne Disease
Arie Havelaar
The WHO Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG) has estimated that
annually, there are approximately 600 million cases of food borne diseases (FBD) and 420,000 deaths.
The most frequent causes of foodborne illness were diarrheal disease agents, particularly norovirus and
Campylobacter spp. Diarrheal disease agents, especially non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica, were also
responsible for the majority of deaths due to FBD. The global burden of FBD is 33 million disability-
adjusted life years (DALYs). The 14 sub-regions, defined on the basis of child and adult mortality, had
considerably different burdens of FBD, with the greatest burden falling on the sub-regions in Africa and
South-East Asia. Children under five years of age bear 40% of this burden, although they represent only
9% of the global population. The global FBD is comparable to those of the major infectious diseases,
HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. These estimates are conservative; further studies are needed to
address the data gaps and limitations of the study. Nevertheless, all stakeholders can contribute to
improvements in food safety throughout the food chain by incorporating these estimates into policy
development at national and international levels.
Main Messages
 WHO has launched the most comprehensive estimates of the global burden of foodborne
diseases to date
 These address the lack of data to support food safety policy making
 Despite data gaps and other limitations, the results demonstrate a considerable burden
 A large share of the burden is borne by children under five years of age and those living in low-
income countries
 Priority hazards differ between regions
 Control methods do exist for many hazards, and are linked to economic development and
effective food safety systems
 Hazards of global significance need novel control methods
2.2 Epidemiological utility of foodborne disease burden estimates
Martyn Kirk
Foodborne diseases are globally important and present a burden for society. There are also serious
outbreaks that have an impact on trade. More than 200 diseases are transmitted by food and many are
infectious, but also many caused by chemicals. There are many difficulties in measuring burden,
including: 1) lack of data; 2) many different agents (and could only include those ranked as high priority);
3) multiple modes of transmission; 4) health outcomes are uncertain; 5) co-morbid illnesses are important.
When assessing burden, the policy objective may be health and it is important to look at incidence,
hospitalization and deaths. Objective may also be societal and it is important to look at outbreaks and
costs. Summary metrics can also be utilized, including the DALY and Quality Adjusted Life Years
(QALY). When examining foodborne burden in Australia, the policy objective was to introduce
regulations at primary production levels. In 2000, estimates projected a cost of foodborne illness at 1.2
billion AUD. In 2010 new estimates were calculated and an overall decline in foodborne illness was
identified, but salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis increased during that period. FBD estimates can be
incorporated into risk assessments to look at the impact of risk management measures. They are also

8
useful for cost-benefit analysis of interventions and to evaluate changes over time (e.g. AMR).
Main Messages
 Global estimates are conservative
 Data quality needs improving
 Estimates of burden have high utility (to justify food safety interventions)
 There is a need for new interventions
 Global and country leadership is essential
2.3 Foodborne disease burden - its application to countries (with focus on Japan)
Fumiko Kasuga
In order to estimate the global burden of foodborne diseases, several task forces were set up, including
one called the “Country Studies Task Force”. The objectives of this task force included: 1) the
development of burden of foodborne disease pilot protocols that can be used by countries to estimate their
national burden of foodborne disease from enteric pathogens, parasites and chemicals and toxins; and 2)
the development or commissioning of all relevant training materials needed to assist countries to build
capacity and undertake a national burden of foodborne disease study (a subgroup called the Knowledge
Translation and Policy Group (KTPG) was established in 2010); 3) oversight of the initiation, conduct
and completion of an agreed number of national foodborne disease pilot studies; 4) the evaluation of the
protocols after the pilot studies are completed, and on making necessary revisions; and 5) oversight of
the initiation, conduct and completion of 18 national burden of foodborne disease studies, 3 in each WHO
region. WHO invited countries to express interest in conducting national burden of foodborne disease
studies as a pilot process and four countries were selected for pilot studies including Albania, Japan,
Thailand and Uganda.
Main Messages
 FERG country studies identified large data gaps
 In Japan, DALYs were calculated for foodborne diseases caused by Campylobacter spp.,
 Salmonella spp., and EHEC (DALYs of foodborne diseases are quite small in Japan)
 Data was collected from available country data, systematic reviews on each sequelae, expert
elicitation
 Need country-specific data but some data can be shared worldwide
 Capacity building for basic statistical data and burden estimates of foodborne diseases needed
in each country
 Need to finalize protocols and training materials
 Use of DALYs in policy evaluation in food safety should be considered in country settings
2.4 Attributing the disease burden to different food groups – will it be easier in the future?
Tine Hald
The majority of dominant foodborne pathogens worldwide are not transmitted solely by food and when
transmitted by food, typically more types of food are susceptible compared to others. Targeted and
effective intervention, therefore, requires knowledge of the most important transmission routes and food
sources. Approaches for estimating the relative public-health impact of different sources have been
gathered under the term “source attribution” and include microbiological subtyping, quantitative risk
assessment, and epidemiological approaches including the summarization of outbreak data. Ideally, more
methods should be applied in conjunction. The need for reliable attribution estimates has prompted a

9
growing body of research focusing on attribution. Several of these studies acknowledge that the impact of
each source differs depending on the epidemiology of the pathogen in question, including factors such as
prevalence, geographical region, season, food trade and consumption patterns. However, due to lack of
data and/or the complexity of transmission pathways, comprehensive attribution studies based on
surveillance data remains limited in scope, and have been performed for a few hazards and in a limited
number of countries to date. When data are not available or accessible, structured expert judgement offers
a transparent and mathematically rigorous alternative, which has been applied in several national studies
and in the WHO-FERG global burden of disease study. Looking ahead, future source attribution studies
are likely to take advantage of the possibility to link the growing amount of open source data (big data
sources), e.g. whole genome sequence data of foodborne pathogens, their associated epidemiological data
and relevant animal and food-source related data such as trade and consumption data.
Main Messages
 WGS data are increasingly collected and stored in open source central databases with relevant
metadata
 Source attribution models can combine WGS data and other explanatory data e.g. from other
relevant big data sources (consumption data, travel data, food and animal trade data, etc.)
 Application of such models on a regular basis using (almost) real-time data could greatly
enhance our understanding of the dynamics and changing sources of foodborne disease
 By identifying the most important sources and transmission routes, the results provide risk
managers with an important prioritization tool
2.5 The complementary roles of quantitative disease burden attribution, expert elicitation and
predictive modelling for priority-setting in regulatory agencies and in industry
Greg Paoli
Epidemiologically-based foodborne disease attribution and predictive modelling of foodborne risk, and
the role of expert judgment have complementary and competing roles. Each method represent important
sources of information. The next phase of development of food safety risk management needs to focus
on the estimation of the impact of a variety of food safety control measures and critically, the marginal
cost-effectiveness of current investments in food safety controls. The development of tools to support the
integration and efficient sharing of risk management information is crucial to improve food safety
decision-making and resource allocation. It is necessary to identify priorities for action for the successful
implementation of risk-based resource allocation.
Main Messages
 Comparative risk assessment is sometimes referred as the fourth pillar of risk assessment, often
at the intersection but is often not highlighted
 Predictive Modelling and Expert-based Attribution processes should both compete and
complement each other to explain the attribution of risk and the incremental cost-effectiveness
of risk-based controls
 The goal should be shared knowledge management for decision-support, not risk ranking.
 There is a need to re-focus on resource allocation, not just making ‘worry lists’

10
2.6 One Health platform in Singapore
Chua Tze Hoong
Emerging infectious diseases and food safety issues have potentially serious impacts on human, animal
and environmental health. As lead agencies for animal health, human health, and environmental health in
Singapore respectively, AVA, MOH and NEA have jointly developed the Singapore’s One Health Frame
work to provide strategic direction and set priorities on One Health issues, and champion interagency
coordination and collaboration. Under the direction of the One Health Coordinating Committee (OHCC),
the One-Health Working Group (OHWG) with members across the agencies work to formulate,
coordinate, implement and review programmes, initiatives and action plans. Project teams may be
formed, as and when necessary, to focus on specific One Health issues or projects. Since its inception,
the One Health platform has been used increasingly among the One Health agencies to collaborate on
various projects spanning across capability development, surveillance and risk assessment, protocols to
communications. Key achievements include the development of joint response protocols for avian
influenza incursion and foodborne disease outbreak, the launch of the One Health Specialist Diploma for
capability development of officers, the establishment of regular information-sharing platforms through
the annual One Health symposiums for interactions among local and overseas One Health practitioners
and stakeholders as well as sharing sessions for technical officers to share and update surveillance or One
Health issues.
Main Messages
 There are some challenges in operationalizing One Health:
 Must overcome the agency-centric priorities and approaches that work along traditional
disciplinary lines, to be able to commit to a whole-of-government approach
 Generally it takes a joint approach to get people working together and there is a need to
communicate early on potential issues so that actions can be taken quickly and the need
for information flow to be prompt and forth-coming.
 There is a need to build confidence with regard to the use of information and data, for an
established objective.
 There are many significant impacts and benefits of an effective One Health collaboration:
 Harnessing inter-agency expertise and enhance inter-agency collaboration
 Strengthen preparedness and responsiveness to public health incidents
 Streamline processes and reduce duplication
During the discussion, it was explained that when determining disease burden estimates, the underlying
principles are the same from a biological perspective, but different because of different diseases. The
approach of burden estimation does not account for co-morbidity and it was explained that the only way
to do this would be to integrate the analysis in a comprehensive framework. However, even in such studies
there is typically only one cause of death indicated.
It was also noted that not many chemicals were considered for producing disease burden estimates by
FERG. The main reason was explained as a methodological challenge whereby the global health
community and chemical risk assessment community use different models to estimate the incidence of
chemically related diseases. While chemicals are currently under-represented in the estimates, it is a goal
to provide more figures in future.

11
The prospect of future updates to the global estimates was discussed, and it was recognized that at the
global level, updates will be a long time coming. Instead, there is hope that work will be conducted at the
country level to present national estimates. In the USA, estimates are provided every 10 years. It was
suggested that the first step for any country is to obtain better data, and before trend reporting can be done
- there needs to be a huge investment in public health infrastructure.
The link between nutritional state of populations and occurrence of foodborne illness was questioned, but
the FERG study did not investigate this. However, the relationship can be understood as bi-directional,
whereby various forms of malnutrition can make people more susceptible to foodborne illness, and
foodborne illness can exacerbate various forms of malnutrition.
It was also mentioned that North America and Europe have lower incidence of foodborne diseases and it
was questioned whether or not temperate or tropical climate conditions have been linked to foodborne
diseases. While some hazards are linked to their ecology which only occur in some places, it was
explained that link to income and development is stronger than the link to climate. It was suggested that
there are no ecological reasons why some countries could not have high level of food safety.
Integrated One Health approach to surveillance was discussed as an idea to strive towards, while
recognizing the challenges associated with such a system, including the cost. It was suggested that
surveillance will be improved when the sharing of data improves and through the application of
technologies like NGS. Smarter sampling was suggested to optimize the use of resources, as in some
countries, the focus remains on particular pathogens. The point was made that smarter sampling could get
more information on more pathogens from different places to provide a more representative picture. It
was noted that different agencies have different mandates for sampling and analysis and the key will be
to improve the integration of different sources in the future.
It was suggested that in many developing countries, what is needed is very basic reporting systems on
demography and vital statistics. In countries where laws dictate reportable diseases, it can be difficult to
change. Improving research efforts to complement existing surveillance systems was suggested as one
way to strengthen current systems in a practical way and to introduce changes over time. It was also
acknowledged that very basic event-based surveillance is also a requirement in countries that do not have
more advanced laboratory based surveillance or integrated surveillance systems.
In areas where food safety is given less priority, it was suggested that resource mobilization could be
spurred following outbreak investigations that identify contaminated food as the source. Both policy
makers and consumers were mentioned as groups towards whom more advocacy work needs to be
targeted.
The discussion also examined the differences between the risk bearer and the risk taker. It was suggested
that those who take actions (risk managers) and bear costs and those who gain benefits are different. It
was acknowledged that it is not always easy for risk managers to see the long-term benefits of certain
measures.
2.8 Summary of potential for regional use of foodborne disease burden estimates in for food safety
regulation: feedback from group discussions
Meeting participants were divided into four groups in order to discuss the potential for regional use of
foodborne diseases burden estimates for food safety regulation. Common themes identified in multiple

12
groups included:
 Global estimates as a starting point: a staged approach should be considered, particularly in
countries with a limited food safety system in place with limited data; the global and regional
burden results can be used to demonstrate the importance of food safety, with the goal of gaining
political interest in food safety for improved resources, then national studies can be considered;
FBD data need to translate into food safety action.
 Need for training and advocacy at national level: more information needs to be provided to
countries on the importance of the FBD estimates and their potential application to improve food
safety (high-level buy-in is needed)
 Importance of sharing between countries: not only data, but also case studies to illustrate how
data was used and the benefits from conducting FDB studies (including impact on public health
and trade)
 Challenges for countries to conduct national studies: Given the differences between
countries, targeted national assistance would be helpful; WHO has some data for individual
countries already and modelling tools (i.e. software) that can already be made available upon
request
 Utilization of INFOSAN: mentioned by several groups as a global mechanism that could be
utilized to effectively share global data and other information on FDB globally
Following feedback presentations from each of the four groups, the discussion during the plenary
highlighted the need for WHO to make it more clear to countries where the global FBD burden estimates
can be utilized to better articulate needs within a framework to improve national food safety systems.
While there was general agreement in the fact that the global FBD burden estimates are useful, it was
acknowledged that there is a collective need to better explain and advocate for the benefit of sharing
data and what countries will gain from doing so. It was suggested that the many specificities at the
regional and sub-regional levels (with regards to trade habits and food habits) will influence national
data determination and comparability between countries.
A representative from WHO clarified that the publication of the global estimates does not signal the end
of the work. Several projects are ongoing in countries to develop their own estimates and a “country
studies tool” exists which allows national officers in countries to utilize the same methodology to make
their own estimates. It was suggested that there are already tremendous opportunities to utilize data that
already exists, so advocacy in this area will be important.

13
3. Plenary Session 2: Risk Assessment and Sustainability
3.1 Using stochastic modelling in microbiological risk assessment – practical examples
David Vose
A microbial risk assessment (MRA) attempts to quantify the risk and uncertainty in a food or water
microbial pathogen-related problem. Quantification of risk, with probability values and magnitudes of
impact, are preferred over descriptive statements like ‘highly unlikely’ because they offer greater
objectivity, direct comparisons, and the opportunity for optimization. MRA is performed using Monte
Carlo simulation software, in which usually an approximation is modelled of the process that begins with
farming the food-producing animal, through slaughtering, transport and retail to the final human
consumption of the food product(s), all the while tracking the variation in pathogenic microbial load.
However, in the twenty years since MRA began to be adopted, the key benefits it has provided include:
1) stimulating thinking about the contamination and infection processes in the system and 2) the collection
of more MRA-focused data. These are ancillary to MRA’s principal function of providing useful
quantitative risk information for risk managers. MRA models can be expensive and time-consuming, and
have rarely provided any genuine additional insight.
Main Messages
 If you don’t have good estimates of infection rates in humans, you can never obtain a benefit: cost
ratio to justify an intervention
 Look for precise estimates of illness attribution:
 If the pathogen does not create reservoirs, illness rates will be about proportional to animal
prevalence
 Truncate load distributions: don’t resurrect non-existent bacteria i.e. <0.5 CFU = no CFU
 Uncertainty in dose-response models are huge
 If max realistic dose lies low (<10%) on the dose-response curve, Illnesses are roughly
proportional to total bacterial exposure
3.2 FAO/WHO risk assessments for pathogenic Vibrio spp.
Iddya Karunasagar
Among the over 80 Vibrio species found in the aquatic environment, three species are of public health
concern including viz V. cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus. Considering the issues of
consumer protection and international trade, the Codex Alimentarius Commission asked FAO/WHO to
assess the risk due to these organisms and advice on the risk management options. FAO/WHO set up an
Expert Group for risk assessment and this group decided to focus on: 1) public heal risk due to
choleragenic V. cholerae in warm water shrimp in international trade; 2) risk due to pathogenic V.
parahaemolyticus in bivalve molluscs and finfish; and 3) risk due to V. vulnificus in oysters. Choleragenic
V. cholerae was chosen because, currently only two serotypes out of over 200 recognised serotypes are
capable of causing the disease cholera. SPS measures of some countries were related to outbreaks of
cholera in some fish exporting countries. The risk assessment is based on data on analysis of shrimp at
border inspection points in major shrimp importing countries for detection of choleragenic V. cholerae.
The assessment shows that when shrimp are harvested, handled and processed under conditions of good
hygienic practice (GHP) and applying principles of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), the
chances of contamination with choleragenic V. cholerae are very minimal and the public health risk due

14
to consumption of such shrimp is extremely low. The outputs of FAO/WHO risk assessments were used
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in developing guidelines for the control of pathogenic Vibrio spp
in seafood.
Main Messages
 Data needs include:
 Relation between V. parahaemolyticus levels and environmental factors in different
geographical regions;
 Levels of pathogenic strains through supply chain
 Growth of V. parahaemolyticus strains in bivalve species of importance (total and
pathogenic strains);
 Outbreak investigations and levels of vibrio spp. involved
 Bivalve production, postharvest and consumption practice
3.3 Getting started on risk ranking: a guided approach
Barbara Kowalcyk
Efforts to improve food safety to protect public health from microbial and chemical foodborne hazards
remain a significant challenge globally. National food safety authorities faced with a wide range of food
safety issues, often simultaneously and with limited resources, must set priorities so that resources can be
allocated efficiently and effectively to protect public health and contribute to food security and economic
development. Embedded in a risk analysis framework, risk ranking provides a structured, science-based
approach for analyzing and ordering the public health impacts of foodborne hazards, and plays an integral
role in the development and implementation of a risk-based food safety system. There are a number of
methods for ranking food safety risks but these vary widely in terms of methodology, data needs and
required expertise. As a result, developing and implementing a country specific risk ranking approach
remains a challenge for many.
Main Messages
 Risk ranking is:
o Integral to development and implementation of risk-based food safety system
o Complex, iterative, data-driven process
o Requires interdisciplinary approach
 Proposed approach:
o Goal is to improve capacity for risk ranking
o Provides logical, transparent, evidence-based framework for conducting risk ranking
o Starting point that should evolve as new information becomes available
o Results may be relative risk rankings, not measures of risk
3.4 Addressing and assessing food safety risks at primary production
Tom Ross
Food safety risk assessment is an important strategy contributing to the protection of public health and
facilitating economic growth of nations through facilitation of international trade in foods. The aim of
risk assessment is to provide support to food safety risk managers to develop optimal food safety
management strategies. FAO/WHO have developed expert guidance on how food risk assessment can

15
and should be done, focusing on principles rather than the prescription of methods. Those principles
include the need for transparency, the discovery and use of the best available scientific data and
knowledge, and the identification and consideration of the influence of uncertain and variable factors on
the estimated risk. FAO/WHO’s risk assessment paradigm recognizes that hazards can arise and change
at all stages of the supply chain, requiring an integrated ‘through chain’ approach to food safety
management, including primary production. While data exist to characterize risks, and factors that affect
risk, at most stage of the supply chain factors contributing to risk at the point of production and harvest
of food seem far more variable, and random, and difficult to characterize and manage. Yet, it is
increasingly apparent that ‘on farm’ factors can have an enormous influence on the risk to consumers,
particularly for minimally processed foods.
Main Messages
 Many food safety hazards are present at the point of growing, or harvesting/catching – not all
represent risk
 Modern consumers/markets desire less processed and “fresher” foods
 For some products (ready-to-eat; high pathogen load) on-farm risk management/hazard
minimization is the only viable risk management option
 This dependency is likely to increase
 Risk assessment is not used to identify hazards (epidemiology), but to suggest risk management
options
 Perhaps “science-based” and “transparent decisions” (rather than full RA-based) may (have to)
suffice for risk management in some cases (perhaps not if the aim is to prove equivalence)
3.5 Quantitative sustainability assessment – modelling the life cycle of the food products
Michael Zwicky Hauschild
When assessing the environmental sustainability performance of food products and food production
systems, it is relevant to take a systems perspective and analyze the whole value chain from the primary
production in farming or fishery over manufacture, distribution and retail to the consumer, including all
auxiliary systems including energy, water and waste management. In addition, it is important to consider
all relevant environmental impacts, from local impacts associated with land- and freshwater use over
regional impacts associated with air pollution and emission of chemicals to global impacts like climate
change and loss of non-renewable resources. It is also important to consider human health impacts from
food contaminants and in order to avoid problem shifting between stages or activities of the value chain
or between environmental impacts.
Main Messages
 Life cycle assessment supports:
 Quantitative assessment of environmental sustainability
 Finding the most sustainable solution (eco-design)
 Identify environmental hot spots in the life cycle of the product or technology
 Avoiding sub-optimizations in the development of more sustainable solutions
 Communication about environmental impacts of products and solutions

16
3.6 Sustainability of food production and food safety/security improvements
Fumiko Kasuga
According to Fumiko Kasuga, The fifth Assessment Report of IPCC predicted that global surface and
warm during the 21st
century. In September 2015, UN Member States adopted 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) among which there are Goal 2: No hunger, Goal 3: Good health and well-being, and several
more that related to sustainable food production and food safety/security. Future Earth is an international
research platform for global sustainability. It aims to generate knowledge and lead to solutions by
collaboration across academic disciplines and with the stakeholders in the society to address complicated
global challenges. Knowledge-Action Networks are practical vehicles for information sharing and active
participation in several major research themes such as Food-Water-Energy Nexus, Cities, Health, Ocean,
Sustainable Development Goals, Finance and Economics, etc. To achieve sustainability of food production
and food safety/security improvements, we need to understand whole ecosystem of the environment and
human society in systematic and holistic manners. It is challenging but there are chances for innovation.
We hope that Future Earth will contribute to these issues through national, regional and global activities.
Main Messages
 The two key aims of Future Earth include: 1) scientific integration across natural and social
sciences and humanity(interdisciplinary approach); and 2) co-creation of knowledge with
stakeholders in society (transdisciplinary approach, stakeholder engagement)
 Future earth embraces a strong regional engagement for its global agenda to adequately address
regional science priorities and end user needs
 Regional centres provide the five core functions, including coordination, research enabling,
communication, capacity building and synthesis and foresight
 The regional centre for Future Earth in Asia builds networks among research communities and
stakeholders in the region and promotes the Future Earth initiative in Asia to enhance global
sustainability
 The international Future Earth Open Network is a light-touch coalition of institutes and projects
committed to the vision of Future Earth.
 Knowledge-Action Networks are structured networks catalysing new research and deep
engagement with society, including areas in health, finance & economics, water-energy-food
nexus.
During the plenary discussion, it was reiterated that the capacity to model in areas with major inherent
uncertainties has resulted in a general move from deterministic to stochastic risk assessments. There was
general agreement among commentators that such approaches have the capacity to improve the
production efficiency and sustainability of food production chains. It was also mentioned that the adoption
of such techniques will enable the use of new data in decision-support systems based on stochastic
modelling for the assessment of risks, benefits and sustainability of food production throughout the food
chain.
During the discussion, it was questioned as to whether or not life cycle assessment (LCA) was substituting
risk assessment. It was explained that LCA and RA are complementary and really are different methods
and should be combined. It was also clarified that one can think through the life cycle assessment without

17
modeling and that the assessment can be qualitative rather than quantitative.
It was further explained that the 5 countries who are hosting Future Earth are supporting the human
resources and offices. Each individual project has a funding scheme. For new initiatives, it was clarified
that funding is raised from national contributions or from the private sector.

18
4. Plenary Session 3: Next Generation DNA Sequencing (NGS)
4.1 International collaboration potential through sharing NGS data
Steven M. Musser
A fundamental principle of FDA’s oversight of food safety is to use the best available science to identify,
prevent, and contain hazards that cause foodborne illness. In keeping with that philosophy, the
GenomeTrakr network was established to facilitate the sharing of pathogen sequence data between public
health agencies, academia, and the food industry, with the goal of preventing large-scale foodborne illness
outbreaks. A significant advantage of the large, publicly accessible whole genome sequence (WGS)
database created by the GenomeTrakr network is the ability to identify root causes of foodborne
contamination by linking geographically and temporally dispersed strains of pathogenic bacteria to their
common source with unprecedented precision. Comparative analysis of Salmonella and Listeria genomes,
previously deemed indistinguishable by conventional subtyping methodologies, enables earlier
interventions when cases of foodborne illness occur. As the number of sequences in open-source
databases increases, FDA envisions the information being used to identify emerging drug resistance
concerns, to develop rapid methods, and to inform foodborne illness prevention strategies in food facilities
and on the farm.
Main Messages
 WGS has its maximum benefits where you can link clinical samples and food and environmental
samples to identify the source of contamination
 Outbreak investigation consists of epidemiological investigation (includes questionnaires,
laboratory results and patient interviews) and regulatory investigation (includes inspection,
sample collection, laboratory results and recall time) and by using WGS in epidemiological
investigation, it enables quicker food emergency response to outbreak by reducing the time
required to initiate regulatory investigation.
 WGS is now routine in FDA’s outbreak response and compliance/surveillance activities.
Internally (across our agency), and in collaboration with FSIS and CDC, WGS has now been
deployed and benefitted the traceability of numerous foodborne contamination events.
 WGS can be used to inform trace-back investigations and delimit the scope of food
contamination events unlike ever before – not just a regulatory tool - numerous offshoot
applications exist (i.e., supply chain management, quality assurance, process evaluation, etc.)
 Genome sequences are portable and instantly cross-compatible. One technology approach is
irrelevant of organism.
 Have to balance the need for increased number of well characterized Environmental (food,
water, facility, etc.) sequences with the need for extensive clinical isolates for the tracking
system to work
 WGS is more discriminately than PFGE and it can pinpoint to the source of contamination (eg.
location) faster if environmental samples are collected too
 WGS, unlike PFGE, is more than a surveillance tool. It provides information on AMR,
Virulence, serotype, and other critical factors in one assay, including historical reference to
pathogen emergence.

19
4.2 Collaborative management platform for detection and analyses of (re-) emerging and
foodborne outbreaks in Europe
Frank M. Aarestrup
The decreasing costs and fast development of NGS has the potential to completely change disease
detection and surveillance capacity and organization. A huge advantage is the generation of the genomic
information independently of the type of pathogen (viruses, bacteria, and parasites) which could change
the focus from working in pathogen-specific silos to focusing on the disease symptoms and studying them
across pathogens. Currently, the most important limiting factor in many countries is the lack of access to
bioinformatic expertise, especially when used as part of frontline diagnostics. In 2014, the European
Commission funded the COMPARE project (www.compare-europe.org). COMPARE aims to create a
single site for uploading, sharing, comparing, and analyzing data from bacteria, parasites, and viruses as
well as single genomes and meta-genomic projects. The COMPARE platform will allow for data hubs
for defined collaborators that support release into the public domain, but that allow, if required, temporary
‘quarantine’ and for more restricted local early sharing, acknowledging that there can be special
circumstances where confidentiality is needed. One of the new challenges with NGS data is the extreme
volume of data which has to be compared and analyzed. Thus, we do expect that in the future it will be
increasingly difficult and, for some people/organizations, impossible to download data for local
bioinformatic analysis. In addition, several data providers will not have the bioinformatic expertise to
analyze their data. Default analytic pipelines will be included in the COMPARE system and, in addition,
will include the possibility for researchers to upload their own bioinformatic pipelines to the server (e.g.,
bring the tools to the data), facilitating both broader use of tools and reducing the global transfer of data.
Main Messages
 There can be no real-time surveillance without real-time data sharing
 What is needed now:
 Real-time data on occurrences of all infectious agents
 (Automatic) detection of related clusters in time and space
 Possibility to observe trends in clones and species as well as virulence and AMR
 Ability to rapidly compare between all types of data
 Guiding principles for one system to serve all:
 Cross sector, cross domain, open source (not commercial)
 Interaction with the rest of the world (all inclusive)
 Data for action (actionable outputs)
 Central repository (ENA, DDJ, NCBI) (bring the tools to the data)
 Genetic code is a universal language and there is no human error
 Exchange of information allows local and global actions to be taken
 COMPARE is about comparing and making the data available globally
 COMPARE project has created online bioinformatics tools that enable users to assemble genome
sequence, identify AMR genes and etc.
4.3 Applications of WGS for food safety management
Masami Takeuchi
Food safety is a global concern and the current estimated global burden of foodborne disease from
microbiological food safety problems and the related social and economic costs remain unacceptably
high. Some newly emerging tools that can be useful in managing such food safety problems have become

20
increasingly sophisticated. However, challenges remain in outbreak investigations, in linking illness to
particular foods and ensuring the appropriate products are recalled. Genome sequencing is one such tool
that offers great potential for various food safety regulatory activities including food inspection, outbreak
detection/investigation and studies on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Such benefits would significantly
contribute to protecting public health and food security as it eventually saves lives and prevents economic
losses and food waste from incorrect or imprecise implications of wrong products and commodities.
However, while several industrialized countries have been moving forward with genome sequencing for
food safety management, its application, particularly in developing and transitional countries is limited.
Overcoming the challenges and ensuring that countries can reap the benefits of genome sequencing
technology means that all parties need to be involved in the dialogue regarding its use in food safety
management.
Main Messages
 WGS represents a powerful and potentially game-changing technology, but without isolates to
analyze, utility is null
 Several countries are already using the technology for public health activities and regulatory
decisions; important for all countries to start understanding the potential impact and implications
of employing (or not employing) WGS for regulatory frameworks
 Simplicity, precision, speed flexibility of WGS mean many advantages over traditional methods
 Cost of sequencing and analyzing the sequence is rapidly declining over time, though the initial
investment can be costly. There is also a need to consider the risk of not having WGS.
 Drawbacks and challenges exist (more for developing countries)
 Significant challenges exist for data interpretation (bioinformatics)
 There are many issues around global data sharing
 Realization of how WGS crosscuts and is relevant to a One health approach is important
 The technology is here to stay - there is a need for a step by step approach for developing
countries.
4.4 The development of WGS in food safety investigations in China
Jianguo Xu
China jointed the PulseNet family as member of PulseNet Asia Pacific 2001, and set up PulseNet China
2004, in order to establish the national network for foodborne outbreak investigation and significant
progress has been achieved since then. When the pulse field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and multi locus
sequence typing (MLST) were used as keyword, the number of papers published by Chinese scientists
has been increased annually. Because the technology of PFGE is not powerful enough, and the sequencing
technology has been updated rapidly, China National Pathogen Detection Net has been proposed and
accepted by administration authority, of which the whole genome sequencing and analysis of bacterial
isolates will become core element. In the past years, WGS has been used widely in China for outbreak
investigation.
Main Messages
 WGS identified the infectious source and transmission model which cannot be revealed by
PFGE or MLST: outbreak of Streptococcus suis 2005
 WGS identified the unique Clone of E.coli O157:H7 caused outbreak in 1999 in China
 Understanding One Health is important
 WGS provided open source analysis for global outbreak caused by Shiga-toxin producing E.coli

21
O104:H4 2011 in Germany
 WGS identified turtles as the major source for V.cholerae O139 in China
 WGS identified the emerging, spreading and evolution of the Shigella flexneri Xv in China
 Genome epidemiology is core element of China National Pathogen Detection Net
4.5 Implementing WGS as a tool to strengthen FDB surveillance and response systems: WHO
country guidance and tools
Amy Cawthorne
WGS is an incredibly exciting development and will change surveillance and response. The application
of WGS will better enable national authorities to detect outbreaks. WGS is a laboratory process and not
a surveillance system in itself and countries need to have laboratory based surveillance systems. In Asia,
there is a gap in most countries laboratory capacities. There are not that many lab-based surveillance
systems for foodborne pathogens. WHO has responded to this gap by developing step-wise guidance to
address IHR core capacities that allow countries to move from event and indicator based surveillance
system into an integrated surveillance system where data is being collected from across the food chain.
For foodborne pathogens, clinical data has limited utility without environmental samples. The new WHO
guidance will be available online. Specifically for WGS, WHO partnered with PAHO to develop a plan
for 2016-18. First a landscaping paper will be developed, which will lead to the provision of country
guidance, training, and a global consultation on data sharing. The landscaping paper builds on existing
reports and papers to provide an overview of the evidence base and potential application of WGS as a
tool for FBD surveillance. This will turn WGS into a tool to strengthen integrated surveillance and allow
public health action. WGS can be applied as a technology for surveillance and response systems, but there
are resource implications causing bottlenecks for developing countries.
Main Messages
 WGS in and of itself is a laboratory process and not a surveillance system
 Should to be implemented within a functioning lab-based surveillance system
 WHO landscaping paper builds on existing reports and papers to provide an overview of the
evidence base and potential application of WGS as a tool for FBD surveillance
 Country guidance is available for supporting decision making, identifying resource and
infrastructure implications, describing when not to implement, linking to wider systems
requirements and identification of implementation options
 Microbiologists and epidemiologists, together with WGS data that are collected for surveillance
have to “work” together to enable quicker response to outbreak
 In order to encourage global data sharing, a larger structured construction is required to help
protect researchers that share data
4.6 Real-Time genome sequencing of resistant bacteria provides precision infection control in an
institutional setting
Dag Harmsen
The increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria is a serious global challenge. A
prospectively study was conducted to determine whether bacterial whole genome sequencing (WGS) for
real-time MDR surveillance is technical feasible, returns actionable results, and is cost-beneficial. WGS
was applied to all MDR isolates of four species (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA],

22
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, MDR Escherichia coli, and MDR Pseudomonas
aeruginosa) at the University Hospital Muenster, Germany, a tertiary care hospital with 1,450 beds,
during two six-month intervals. Turn-around times (TAT) were measured and total costs for sequencing
per isolate were calculated. After cancelling prior policies of preemptive isolation of patients harboring
certain Gram-negative MDR bacteria in risk areas, the second interval was conducted. During interval I,
645 bacterial isolates were sequenced. From culture, Turn-around times ranged from 4.4 to 5.3 days, and
costs were 202.49 € per isolate. During interval II, 550 bacterial isolates were sequenced. Hospital-wide
transmission rates of the two most common species (MRSA and MDR E. coli) were low during intervals
I (5.8 and 2.3 %, respectively) and II (4.3 % and 5.0 %, respectively). Cancellation of isolation of non-
pan-resistant MDR E. coli in risk wards did not increase transmission. When comparing sequencing costs
with avoided costs mostly due to less blocked beds during interval II, there was a savings in excess of at
least 200.000 €. Real-time microbial WGS was in our institution feasible, produced precise actionable
results, helped to monitor transmission rates that remained low following a modification in isolation
procedures, and ultimately saved costs.
Main Messages
 Transmissions are quite rare; exclusions of transmissions are most common situations
 Rule-out majority of isolates easy with NGS; rule-in requires extra epidemiologic information
 WGS-based surveillance is cost effective
 Patient-benefits after translation of our findings to routine management of bacterial infections:
 No general preemptive isolation of patients with 3MDR-GN (only in suspected cluster
situations)
 Avoiding the negative effects of isolation increase quality of patient care
 Increased control of standard hygiene measures
4.7 The PulseNet model for NGS surveillance
Peter Gerner-Smidt
PulseNet is the 20-year old molecular subtyping network for foodborne disease surveillance. Participants
are > 80 national mainly public health laboratories. The network has transformed food safety surveillance
with PFGE as its primary subtyping method. PFGE is now being replaced with WGS and reference
characterization of foodborne pathogens i.e. identification, serotyping, virulence and antimicrobial
resistance determination is added to its repertoire since this information may be extracted from the WGS
data. Method standardization is key to PulseNet’s success ensuring fast and efficient exchange of data
and analysis between laboratories. In outbreak investigations and other public health emergencies time is
a critical issue. The analysis tools must also be simple and easy to interpret to be used by microbiologists
with little bioinformatics expertise. PulseNet is working with partners in academia and food regulatory
agencies to develop these tools. Among the available analytical approaches, the gene by gene approaches
are most easily standardized, scalable and in their most discriminatory form (wgMLST) as discriminatory
as the other approaches. Therefore, they will be the primary subtyping tools for PulseNet. The current
network infrastructure, analytical platform and database will be used because of its versatility and because
the PulseNet participants are familiar working with it for >20 years. WGS has successfully been used for
surveillance of listeriosis since 2013. It is replacing traditional methods in food safety surveillance being
phylogenetic relevant with superior resolution compared to current methods. WGS is revolutionizing the
surveillance of both sporadic and outbreak related foodborne infections.

23
Main Messages
 Outbreak surveillance is a collaboration
 The national molecular subtyping network for foodborne disease surveillance
 Outbreak surveillance must be performed in real-time
 Easier and faster to exchange data than to exchange strains
 Standardized, automated methods must be used to ensure comparability of data generated in
different laboratories, save time and resources
 Subtyping information, i.e. extracted data, should be shared in compatible formats
 Incompatibility of analyzed data hampers investigations
 Data include more than subtyping information
 What is shared publically is not sufficient to guide an (epidemiological) outbreak
investigation
 Bioinformatics is only one of the analysis tools you need for outbreak investigations
 All relevant data should be placed and analyzed in one database or in databases that are linked
(to avoid errors and save time interpreting sequence data and associated metadata
 Two WGS analytical approaches:
 Cg/wg MLST is the preferred public health standard
 hqSNP better suited for supplementing/ confirmatory analysis and research
 Optimal outbreak detection/ investigation with WGS:
 Think globally
 Harmonization of sequencing-standardization of analysis
4.8 GenomeTrakr – increasing outbreak investigation potential dramatically through NGS
Marc Allard
In 2012 a pilot project was set up at the national level in US using whole genome sequence data (WGS)
to track foodborne outbreaks. This pilot, now a mature network, is called GenomeTrakr. In this network,
public health agencies collect and publically share WGS data in real time. This high-resolution, rapidly
growing database is actively being used in outbreak investigations at the state, national, and international
level. The GenomeTrakr network demonstrates how desktop WGS data can be used in concert with
traditional epidemiology for source tracking of foodborne pathogens. Along with the paradigm shift in
technology this new “open data” model allows greater transparency between federal/state agencies, our
industry partners, academia, and international partners. Ten new labs were added to the network in 2016
in an effort to grow and diversify the foodborne pathogen database. Two new surveillance efforts were
added to collect food and environmental isolates of Escherichia coli and Campylobacter. Our partner,
NCBI, is currently producing daily cluster results for ten pathogen surveillance efforts, all of which are
publically available. The high-resolution WGS data in concert with solid epidemiological evidence has
drastically enhanced our ability to identify the food source of current outbreaks for Listeria
monocytogenes. Understanding the root causes of foodborne contamination will assist our academic,
public health and industry partners to develop preventative controls to make food safer globally.
Main Messages
 WGS Supports preventive controls by complimenting rapid testing methods and environmental
monitoring.
 Applications of WGS in the Food Safety Environment:
 Delimiting scope and traceback of food contamination events (Track-N-Trace)
 Quality control for FDA testing and surveillance (enhanced confidence against type 1

24
and 2 error)
 Preventive control monitoring for compliance standards
 ID, geno/pheno typing schemes
 risk assessment and adaptive change in Salmonella and Listeria
 Resident pathogens - over half of facilities polyclonal, but clones persist year to year
 Not new - TX facility 1988 isolates match 2000 outbreak
 Inclusion - 20 SPs is probably conservative , more data needed to develop probabilities/ odds
ratios
 Inspections - most facilities on a 3 to 5 year cycle, problematic facilities more often , more data
on the way with statistical inferences
4.9 Suggesting a global system of all whole genome sequences of all microorganisms in the world
Jorgen Schlundt
Regardless if an isolate is from a patient or a food, it can be sent for DNA sequencing, uploaded to a
cloud, and submitted to the database, and then quick feedback can be received to inform all the details of
the organism including any AMR. This translates to better patient treatment or the use of information to
find out what food may be responsible for a particular outbreak. If everyone was using the system, it
would create alert flags and this could be immediately informed to users, thereby providing a type of
surveillance system. The idea of the GMI is that it would end of with three lines of action: 1) Simple
identification of all microorganisms through faster cheaper, and more correct characterization: 2) A DNA
database of all micro strains globally, enabling real-time global surveillance of diseases and resistance;
and 3) A DNA database enabling a giant resource for genomic knowledge of all microorganisms.
Main Messages
 A global system enables three lines of action
 Simple identification of all microorganisms through faster, cheaper, more correct
characterization
 A DNA database of all microbiological strains globally, enabling real-time global(and
national) surveillance of disease and resistance
 A DNA database enabling a giant resource for genomic knowledge of all
microorganisms
 Different researchers and different sectors are already starting to build separate databases with
separate interphases and algorithms (need to act now)
 If too many separate /different systems are built it will be difficult to agree to common format
and common understanding (and we will again leave developing countries behind)
 NGS leap-frog potential in developing countries (new diagnostics avoids need for
specialized training, e.g. training for Salmonella and norovirus is the same)
 New diagnostic systems reaching further with real time characterization of microorganisms (in
decentralized labs with sequencers and internet)
 NGS enable uniform lab-based surveillance systems
 Same-same for humans & animals (One Health)

25
During the discussion, it was indicated that while FDA has done a lot of outreach to industry, they have
received a clear message that they are not interested in providing samples. While the scientists may want
to collaborated, legal issues have so far precluded such collaboration. These issues may eventually be
resolved and the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act requires industry to conduct a lot more testing,
particularly in high risk facilities. The information will need to be managed and reported to regulatory
agencies. It was confirmed that many data are collected from state partners and that FDA also conducts
environmental sampling themselves.
It was indicated that the Department of Justice in the USA is comfortable utilizing genomic information
as there are well accepted criteria to match food and people, particularly in criminal cases. It was
confirmed that there has been a trend towards less questioning of the data and it can be likened to the
introduction of mass spectrometry a couple decades ago – first there were challenges, but once high
resolution technology was accepted, the disputes dissipated.
The cost of sequencing machines was discussed as a function of the lifespan and the throughput. Some
may have a 5-year life span, but the longer it lives and the higher the throughput, the more cost efficient
it is. It was explained that in the University Hospital Muenster, Germany, sequence data is being used so
far for surveillance purposes only, not yet on an individual level to indicate treatment.
During the discussion it was clarified that for those seeking to compare their national strains with others,
should consult the public databases (e.g. Genbank) and download the genomes.
There was discussion regarding the need for global organizations to take the lead in establishing a
centralized repository for genome data so as to avoid the development of multiple pipelines.
It was suggested that WGS does not need to be integrated within a surveillance system before it becomes
useful. The technology could be applied as part of an international outbreak investigation or in a local
context to determine if domestic products are the source of illness in another country. It was conceded
that of course it is better to have an advanced, integrated system, but it was emphasized that all countries
could still make use of the technology.
During the discussion it was suggested that a lack of bioinformatics knowledge and inability to interpret
data is a roadblock for using NGS technology. Training courses recently delivered by WHO have not
focused on bioinformatics as that type of expertise cannot be acquired in a short course. In the long term,
it was suggested that countries must invest in the development of these specialized skill sets.
4.11 Summary of regional collaboration on NGS in food science and food regulation: feedback
from group discussions
Meeting participants were divided into four groups in order to discuss the potential for regional
collaboration on NGS in food science and food regulation. Common themes identified in multiple groups
included:
 Recognition of NGS as a promising new technology for food safety: Several groups discussed
the general agreement of NGS as a useful tool with numerous applications to potentially improve

26
food safety (for outbreak investigation, AMR surveillance, clinical treatment, etc.)
 Need for scoping exercise in the region: including needs assessment to identify strengths and
deficiencies; consider what exists and where; need to identify coordinators for regional / global
data sharing and consider an administrative framework
 Suggestion for the development of regional NGS pilot project: to create momentum and
establish a system; select common pathogens like AMR, Salmonella spp, E.coli with the specific
number of samples to conduct common practices among the members; consider utilizing a pilot
project training centre, data sharing and interpretation, training, instrumental support,
coordination among concerned authorities, etc.)
 Availability of training resources: consider collaboration between NTU and Government
Agencies (South-South Group , Singapore, China and other agencies can accumulation funds and
support others); there are many existing training platforms to exploit
 Need for coordination: to address technical issues related to standardization and handling data;
multi-sector coordination is needed at national level, but also linking internationally.
 Utilization of INFOSAN: mentioned by several groups as a global mechanism that could be
utilized to effectively share global data and other information on opportunities for NGS
collaboration; can also be used to identify countries willing to sequence samples
 Basic laboratory capacity is still lacking in many countries: rudimentary systems
strengthening will be required to build an adequate infrastructure upon which to add WGS
technology in order for some countries to utilize the technology for food safety (e.g. ability to
sample, transport sample, etc.); many countries2
have sequencing machines, but do not have the
capacity to use them
Following feedback presentations from each of the four groups, the discussion during the plenary
highlighted the fact that there is already a de facto global database and hundreds of machines all over
the world, including in Asia. It was noted that by next year, all state laboratories in the United States
will have sequencers. It was suggested that the world could shift to this technology in 5 years, but there
is a cost, and what is needed at this stage is political will. It was suggested that issues such as intellectual
property are slowing down the uptake and it was also mentioned that researches face barriers to sharing
because of the pressure to publish. There was wide recognition of the need for global advocacy and that
FAO, WHO and OIE need to be working together to develop a plan for value proposition and advocacy.
2
http://omicsmaps.com/

27
5. Plenary Session 4: Novel Food Technology
5.1 International efforts to combat food fraud
Andrew Cannavan
Food quality, including food safety, is a major concern facing the food industry today. Current food
labeling and traceability systems cannot guarantee that the food we eat is authentic, of good quality and
safe. Globalization in food trade has increased the need for effective food control systems to protect
consumers from impure, contaminated and fraudulently presented food. Food crime – intentional
mislabeling or adulteration of food commodities for financial gain – has become a major criminal activity
The need for analytical methods to help combat food fraud, to underpin mechanisms for tracing the origin
of food commodities, authenticating food products, detecting adulteration and verifying food traceability
has grown rapidly in recent years, and will most probably increase in the future with the continuing growth
in the complexity of food supply chains. In recent years, considerable effort and funding have been
invested in research to address these issues in many countries and regions. Although various promising
food testing methods have been developed using a variety of analytical techniques, the implementation
of effective controls has been hampered by factors such as the lack of harmonization of approaches,
availability of accessible databases of authentic product characteristics and data, absence of suitable food-
matrix reference materials, lack of awareness in industry and regulatory bodies of the possibilities for
food testing, and the cost of putting some of the methods in place. The Joint FAO/IAEA Division on
Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture is helping to address these issues through a number of
international research and capacity building projects.
Main Messages
 The issues-food authenticity, food fraud
 1) food authenticity: The authenticity of a food products is defined by legally recognized
descriptions that concern its characteristics; Consumers want (need) to be sure that what
they are eating is exactly what they think they are eating
 2)Food fraud: mislabeling(origin, quality, process, etc.); economic drivers-but food
safety often compromised
 Two main mechanisms of FAO/IAEA projects
 1) co-ordinated research projects (CRPs) – theme driven, targeted applied or adaptive
research, method development.
 2) Technical Cooperation Projects (TCPs) – capacity building, transfer of mature or
proven technology, human resource development.
 Supply chain is very complicated; the food control system is vulnerable to fraud.
 Food control systems require analytical techniques for verification of authenticity
 A combination of techniques is required to produce a tool box for regulators and industry
 Combination of analytical techniques and chemo-metrics show promise in the field; traceability
systems are needed including labeling and radio-tagging; good for passing information and
tracking the packaging along the supply chain.
 Data bases are crucial
 International collaboration is necessary

28
5.2 Food fraud prevention: policy, strategy, and decision-making
John Spink
This paper addresses the role of governments, industry, academics, and non-governmental organizations
in food fraud prevention. Before providing strategic concepts for governments and authorities, definitions
of food fraud are reviewed and discussed. Next there is a review of food fraud activities by the Global
Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), the Elliott Review in the United Kingdom, the European Commission
resolution on food fraud, and the US Food Safety Modernization Act including the Preventative Controls
Rule. Two key concepts for governments or a company are: (1) formally, and specifically, mention food
fraud as a food issue and (2) create an enterprise-wide food fraud prevention plan. The research includes
a case study of the implementation of the concepts by a state or provincial agency. This analysis provides
a foundation to review the role of science and technology in detection, deterrence and then contributing
to prevention.
Main Messages
 This Scientific Information Bulletin (SIB) presented an introduction, review of incidents, the
fundamentals of prevention which then provide insight on the optimal role of food science and
technology.
 The types of food fraud stretch the traditional role of food science and technology to include
criminology, supply chain traceability and other control systems.
 The food authenticity and integrity testing will be the most complex actions and their value
should be assessed in terms of the contribution to prevention.
5.3 Food preference, integrity, authenticity and fraud mitigation
Yves Rey
It is anticipated that the world food market will be worth close to $12 trillion by 2020. It is expected that
the demand for food will increase by over 50% by 2050. Climate change, unanticipated biological threats
and fraud threaten the integrity of the world’s food.
Although there have been significant advancements in food production, safety and technology throughout
the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there is still a compelling need for significant improvement, for
example, the approaches taken to manage food fraud are neither well defined nor widely accepted. To
date, it appears that we have been spared from catastrophic damages from food fraud, yet food fraud is
the biggest single risk to the food industry today and its impacts are largely unknown. Food fraud can
destroy companies and paralyze the global food supply. Food fraud is increasingly pervasive and
progressively harder to detect.
Main Messages
 Food manufactures operate in an environment which must take into account consumer needs,
commercial realities and government requirements. These multiple considerations must be
satisfied against the background of an increasingly complex international requirements
 Harmonization and/or equivalence of food regulation and laws around the world
 Adaptation of communication to align the ways consumers and experts think about risk
 Promote the development of competencies, capacity building and food safety culture
 Development of food science, and new technologies to ensure the production of safe food but as
well to mitigate the risk of food fraud/adulteration

29
 Time to work together that the food industry can use right now to combat food fraud
 Industry and Academia Initiatives with public sector contributions
 IFAAO is established to guide food operators through approaches, processes and control to
improve the resilience of supply chains to food authenticity, food fraud.
5.4 Food authenticity and fraud, Asian initiatives for prevention
Terence LT Lau
Foodborne illnesses cause hundred thousands of deaths every year and food safety is inevitably high on
every country’s agenda. Food fraud incidents such as the melamine scandal in China and adulteration of
basmati rice in Asia caused severe health, social and also economic impacts. Fraudulent activities between
Western countries and Asia are different due to different eating habit and culture. Asian food types like
rice, oils, tea, and medicinal crops are more common than cereals, grains and honey in this region. Food
fraud is also becoming more difficult to deal with as fraudulent activities are often designed to get around
any analytical and verification methods. In this talk, Asian-specific food fraudulent activities will be
explored. Development of novel approaches to fight against the emerging new types of fraudulent items
will also be discussed.
Main Messages
 Food safety is a major global public health issues and an important element in food security.
Consumers have the right to safe and nutritious food.
 Fraud is becoming more sophisticated and increasingly difficult to detect by basic analytical
methods
 Impact of food fraud: social and economic costs ; jeopardized the public’s trust and confidence
in the food industry
 Often designed to get round the tests in use
 Emergence of new types of falsified edible items
 Necessary to develop advanced analytical techniques to detect the non-compliant and counterfeit
products
 Targeted analytical approach
 Non target approach
 Require collaboration
o Difficulty between University – Industry – Government collaboration
During the discussion, it was proposed that we may be seeing more cases of food fraud these days, not
because there is necessarily a lot more, but rather because the issue was not being investigated seriously.
It was suggested that while food fraud has existed for as long as there has been food productions, our
ability to detect and mitigate food fraud has only seriously improved recently. It was also offered that
even if abilities to detect fraud have improved, the cases of fraud are becoming increasingly complex as
well. It was also said that there are more opportunities for food fraud with increasingly long production
chains and the increasingly globalized nature of the food supply. There was also discussion on the
whether or not food fraud represents a public health issue. It was suggested that since WHO has a public
health mandate, and since prevention is a major component of any public health effort, that ignoring the
opportunity to address food fraud until it becomes a food safety issue would deny an opportunity for
preventive measures to be applied.

New Science for Food Safety: Supporting Regional Collaboration

New Science for Food Safety: Supporting Regional Collaboration

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à New Science for Food Safety: Supporting Regional Collaboration

Similaire à New Science for Food Safety: Supporting Regional Collaboration (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

New Science for Food Safety: Supporting Regional Collaboration