both inspection and credible threats. In developed economies, these approaches are being supported by greater reliance on self-regulation and industry buy-in. Initiatives such as the industry-led Global Food Safety


Most surveys indicate that the general public is most worried about pesticide residues, food additives, hormones, and other chemicals in food. Yet research shows that most outbreaks of foodborne disease are associated with microbiological contamination.


Initiative and the World Bank–led Global Food Safety Partnership are gradually being extended to emerging and even least developed economies. Risk-based approaches for prioritization can


improve the efficiency and effectiveness of food safety management. Te great majority of the dis- ease burden is caused by a small number of hazards (mostly zoonotic pathogens), and typically a small number of actors and products create a dispropor- tionate amount of risk. Tis patern means that targeting the riskiest products, pathogens, and prac- tices can lead to greater risk mitigation at lower cost. Currently only a few countries consistently use risk targeting (notably Australia and Canada). Extending this approach could have many benefits, especially in resource-poor contexts. Risk-based approaches also include methodologies for structured assessment of the public health impact of a food safety problem and the options for managing it. Te Codex Alimentar- ius Commission is the global standard seter for food safety and provides detailed information on the risk- based approaches that are now the gold standard.30 In developing countries, regulations have been


largely ineffective in the domestic markets where most people buy and sell the riskiest perishable products. Tis failure can be atributed to poor


48 REDUCING AND MANAGING FOOD SCARES


governance, inappropriate food safety systems, and a lack of information, incentives for compli- ance, and resources. Approaches that are possibly more promising involve working with the informal sector to gradually improve practices and building systems with positive incentives for compliance. One example is the informal dairy sector in


Kenya (see Infographic on page 46). In Kenya, around 700,000 smallholders owning 1–10 cows produce 80 percent of the milk (3–5 billion liters per year). Around 70 percent of milk is sold through the informal sector, comprising about 4,000 medium- and 24,000 small-scale operators. A CGIAR research project found that policies banning infor- mal milk markets act as a barrier to the uptake of improved technologies among producers and trad- ers. A model was developed whereby traders would receive training and then be given a certification allowing their operation. Tis policy was recognized by the governing and regulatory bodies in Kenya. Evaluations showed that trained hawkers (market agents) produced safer milk, the informal sector had no worse compliance than the formal sector, and the changes in policy led to economic gains of US$26 million annually.31 Management of food safety is complicated by its


emotive nature. Tere is a remarkably wide diver- gence in how the public and experts assess food risk. For example, food safety experts consider marine toxins to be a serious concern and pesticide residues a minor concern; for the general public, however, these estimates are completely reversed. Most surveys indicate that the general public is most worried about pesticide residues, food additives, hormones, and other chemicals in food. Yet research shows that most outbreaks of foodborne disease are associated with microbiological contamination: people are many times more likely to become ill as a result of microor- ganisms in food than as a result of pesticide residues. Technology and marketing innovations have


potential to continue to improve food safety. Con- sumers universally demand food safety, but it is largely a “credence good”—consumers cannot directly assess its presence. Some steps, such as ongoing research on packages that change color when pathogens are present or market-side tests for adulteration or pathogens, could allow consumers


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139