Food Safety in Latin America

Gerald Gutscher

Latin America

Population:

580m (8,4%)

Arable Land:

567m ha (37%)

Freshwater Supply:

18.392 km3 (33%)

(soft)

Commodity

Giants

Food Supply Chain

1 loaf of bread MADE IN THE U.S.A.

• Wheat gluten from France, Poland, Russia, the Netherlands, or Australia

• Honey from China, Vietnam, Brazil, Uruguay, India, Canada, Mexico, or Argentina

• Calcium propionate from the Netherlands

• Guar gum from India

• Flour enrichments from China

• Beta-carotene from Switzerland

• Vitamin D3 from China

Source: R. Brackett ; Managing Food Safety Practices (2009)

Food Supply Chain

• 200,000 food processing companies

• 900,000 restaurants (12m employees)

• 100m head of cattle

• Avg. distance farm-fork of 1lb of meat: 1,600km

• Agricultural Supply Chain -> U$ 1 trillion p.a.

Source: P. Cheek (2006)

SIMPLIFIED FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN

OF A DEVELOPED COUNTRY

PLA

NT

OR

IG

IN

PR

OD

UC

E

CO

NS

UM

ER

OTH

ER

CR

OP

S

ANIMAL PROTEIN

Storage & Trading

Feed & Flour Mills

FO

OD

IN

DU

STR

YP

rocessin

g &

Packag

ing

Dis

trib

uti

on

& R

eta

il

Restaurants

Aquaculture

Fuente: Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards_UKReport_2007_extract

Consumer Perception and Public Health Concern in Germany

Source: Roehr et al (2005)

Fuente: Griffith, C.J.; Food Safety: where from and where to?; British Food Journal , Vol. 108 No. 1; 2006; pp. 6-15

Food Safety in History

Food Safety Contaminants

MycotoxinsMicro-

biologicalAllergens (claim!)

Agrochemicals (Pest+Drugs)

GMO

Risk Chronic Toxicity Acute Toxicity Acute ToxicityToxic &product attribute

(organic)unknown

Main Cause Climate/Environ. Environment Manufacturing Production Cultivation

Predictability Low Low High High High

Frequency ofoccurrence

Medium High Low* Low High

In Supply ChainMainly primary

productionAll over the supply

chainFood Manufacturing Primary production

Primary production

Motive to ControlEconomic

(Feed/Brand), Legislation

Economic (Brand, Recall), Legislation

To comply with a claim on the label

Legislation or to comply with a claim (product

attribute)

to comply with a claim on the

label, legislation

Preventive Action hardly possiblepartially

possible/unaccepted (irradiation)

yes - thru effective ingredient management

yes - no application of AC in question

yes

Traceable/Liability no partially yes yes yes

Legislation partly yes unclear and partly partly partly

HUMAN INDUCED RISKSENVIRONMENTALLY INDUCED RISKS

PLA

NT

OR

IG

IN

PR

OD

UC

E

CO

NS

UM

ER

OTH

ER

CR

OP

S

ANIMAL PROTEIN

Storage & Trading

Feed & Flour Mills

FO

OD

IN

DU

STR

YP

rocessin

g &

Packag

ing

Dis

trib

uti

on

& R

eta

il

Restaurants

ALLERGENSCritical Points

Aquaculture

• gluten

• crustaceos

• huevos

• pescado

• maní

• soja

• lupines

Alergenos alimentarios

• nueces

• Leche y lactosa

• mostaza

• sésamos

• apio

• Dióxido de azufre, sulfitos >10mg/kg

• moluscos

Cualquier alimento puede provocar una reacción alérgica, pero los alérgenos más comunes (proteínas) son:

→ Directivas de etiquetado para diferentes alergenos

en USA, Canada, EU, Japon, Australia/Nueva Zelanda

Regulaciones de Etiquetado

Alergenos USA EU Canada Japon Australia/

Nueva

Zelanda

Huevo X X X X X

Leche X X X X X

Pescado X X X X

Crustaceos X X X X

Nueces X X X X

Maní X X X X X

Trigo X X X X X

Soja X X X X

Apio X

Mostaza X

Sulfitos >10 mg/kg X >10 mg/kg

Sésamo X X X

Alforfón X

Moluscos X

Lupines X

Regulaciones para Gluten

• “Libre de Gluten” Etiquetado: productos que no contienen trigo (i.e., todas las especies de Triticum, como ser durum, spelt, y kamut), centeno, cebada, avena o las variedades cruzadas, y el contenido de gluten no debe exceder los 20 mg/kg en total

• „Contenido de gluten reducido“, “Dietas especiales” etiquetado: Alimentos procesados en forma especial para reducir el contenido de gluten desde 20 hasta 100 mg/kg

Codex Standard para alimentos destinados a dietas especiales para personas con intolerancia

al gluten (CODEX STAN 118 – 1979)

• Receta (Ingredientes, pre-mezclas de ingredientes)

• Contaminación cruzada

– Almacenamiento de ingredientes

– Producción (pesaje, mezcla, linea de producción – limpieza inadecuada)

– Carry over – limpieza

– Personal

Cómo llegan los alergenos a los productos?

Distribución irregular de los alergenos

Métodos Analíticos Comerciales para Alergenos

Detección de Proteína o DNA

ELISA AgraQuant® Allergen

Lateral flow assay (LFD) AgraStrip® Allergen

PCR

RT-PCR

ELISAPCR

Desafíos para el análisis de

Alergenos

• No hay materiales de referencia disponibles

• No hay patrones de referencia disponibles

• La fortificación es muy dificil

– Spiking con extracto de proteína (que se detecta?)

– Spiking con alergeno (alimento)

– Spiking extracto

– Spiking muestra

Desafíos para el análisis de

Alergenos

Control de Alérgenos

Incluye:

• Desarrollo del producto

• Proveedores de ingredientes

• Almacenamiento

• Identificación de puntos de contaminación cruzada

• Limpieza y Higiene

• Documentación

• Monitoramiento del producto terminado

Lateral flow

ELISA

PCR

ATP

Latin AmericanFood Safety Survey

June 2010

online

n=209

14 countries

Argentina,

17

Brazil, 70

Chile, 24

Colombia,

17Costa Rica, 3

Ecuador, 4

Guatemala, 4

Mexico, 45

Nicaragua, 2

Panama, 1

Paraguay, 9Peru, 4

Uruguay, 8 USA, 1

Respondents by Country

62 48 56 36 7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1

42

27

2120

16

14

139

88

8

7

6621 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Food Complex Feed Complex Research and Public

Organisations

Services Distribution

Respondents by Industry

Certification & Auditing

Brewery & Malting

Dried Fruits, Nuts & Spicery

Commodity Trader/Export

Biotech & Food Safety

Re-Seller/Distributor

Petfood

Flour Milling

Consultancy

Dairy

Research

Animal Husbandry

Government

Feed

University

Service Lab

Food

Respondents„ Profiles

79%

63%

36%

27%21% 19% 17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mycotoxins Microbiology Pesticides Drug Residues Allergens GMO Melamine

Contaminants and Residues Tested% of all respondents n=209, multiple answers possible

80%

51%

36%

23%17%

13% 13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mycotoxins Microbiology GMO Pesticides Drug Residues Melamine Allergens

Contaminants and Residues Tested BRAZIL % of respondents, n=70, multiple answers possible

82%

76%

53%

40%

29%

19% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Microbiology Mycotoxins Pesticides Allergens Drug Residues GMO Melamine

Contaminants and Residues Tested FOOD COMPLEX % of respondents, n=62, multiple answers possible

Status Quo of Food Safety Testing

25

RASFF Border Rejections

48%

45%

13%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

ELISA Chromatography LFD Fluorometry

Technology Employed (n=209)

55%

39%

18%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Technology in the Food Complex (n=62)

48%

21%

8% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Technology in Feed Complex (n=48)

Diagnostic Technology Employed

(chemical contaminants)

27

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mycotoxins Pesticides Veterinary Drug

Residues

GMO Allergens Marine and

Freshwater Biotoxins

Contaminants and residues to play a major role in the future of food safety.

All (n=209)

Food Complex (n=62)

Feed Complex (n=48)

Research Staff (n=44)

QC & Lab Staff (n=105)

Outlook in Food Safety

(chemical contaminants)

28

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Mycotoxins Pesticides Veterinary Drug

Residues

GMO Allergens

Status-Quo vs. Outlook (n=209)

Status-Quo

Outlook

29

Status-Quo vs. Outlook

(chemical contaminants)

Romer Labs Check Sample Survey

Interlaboratory Study

• Round CSS-26307-RLI-2

• Aflatoxins in Maize

• Oct/Nov 2010

Latin America

• 109 participants

• 10 countries

17

43

54

12

17

2 4

5

27

Argentina

Brasil

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Guatemala

Mexico

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Final Considerations

• Compliance with Export Food Safety Standards helps Food Safety in the exporting country.

• Ambivalent Realities– Large Food Export Countries (e.g. Brazil, Argentina,

Chile, Paraguay)

– Countries depended on imports (e.g. cradle of maize depends on US corn)

Balancing Food Security

and Food Safety.

“A World Bank study has calculated that the European Union regulation on aflatoxins costs

Africa $670 million each year in exports of cereals, dried fruit, and nuts. And what does it

achieve? It may possibly save a life of one citizen of the European Union in every two years […]

Surely a more reasonable balance can be found.”

KOFI ANNAN

Final Considerations

Gerald Gutscher

Email: gerald@gutscher.com