Perspective Received: 5 March 2013
Revised: 13 January 2014
Accepted article published: 10 February 2014
Published online in Wiley Online Library:
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.6611
European perspectives of food safety† Diána Bánáti*,‡ Abstract Food safety has been a growing concern among European Union (EU) citizens over the last decades. Despite the fact that food has never been safer, consumers are considerably uncertain and increasingly critical about the safety of their food. The introduction of new principles, such as the primary responsibility of producers, traceability, risk analysis, the separation of risk assessment and risk management provided a more transparent, science-based system in Europe, which can help to restore consumers’ lost confidence. The present EU integrated approach to food safety ‘from farm to fork’ aims to assure a high level of food safety within the EU. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry Keywords: food safety; food policy; paradigm change; European Union; consumer protection; food chain; food scandal
INTRODUCTION Despite the fact that food has never been safer, it seems that consumers are considerably uncertain, anxious and increasingly critical about the safety of their food. Food safety has been a growing concern among European Union (EU) citizens over the last few decades. Outbreaks of disease in animals that could be transmitted to humans, or the presence of chemicals above acceptable limits in feed and food, can threaten both the quality and safety of products. A series of food scandals and scares during the last few decades all over the world, including the EU, has reduced consumers’ confidence in food safety. As a result, European food policy, food legislation and the food safety system have changed considerably. There have been enormous developments in recent decades, both in the methods of food production and processing, and in the controls required to ensure that acceptable safety standards are being met.
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS AGRO-FOOD SECTOR The EU is an economic and political union of 28 Member States located in Europe. It was founded in 1993, and was preceded by the European Communities. The GDP is 25 100 euros/inhabitant, on average, in the 28 Member States (ranging from 5200 to 43 200 euros). The life expectancy at birth is 76.7 years for male and 82.6 years for female citizens in the EU.1 The educational attainment is 74.2%/72.7% (male/female) for those aged 25–64 years with at least an upper secondary education (level generally prior to higher education). The gross domestic expenditure on R&D is 2.03%. The creation of the single market and the corresponding increase in trade and general economic activity transformed the EU into a major trading power.2 The EU is a major global trader in food and feed and has entered into international trade agreements. It contributes to the development of international standards which underpin food law and supports the principles of free trade in safe feed and safe, wholesome food. J Sci Food Agric (2014)
The agro-food sector is of major importance for the European economy as a whole. The food and drink industry is a leading industrial sector in the EU. In fact, it is the largest manufacturing sector in terms of turnover and employment generating an annual turnover of 956 billion euros and direct employment for over four million people.3 Two hundred and seventy-four thousand European food and drink companies produce a vast range of foods, satisfying the wide range of evolving needs of Europe’s 500 million consumers. An international comparison shows that the EU is the world’s largest exporter of food and drink products. Despite losing a market share to emerging economies in recent years, Europe’s food and drink industry is still the leading global exporter of high quality, value added foodstuffs. EU exports are worth 65 billion euros, and imports are worth 56 billion euros. The EU market share of global exports is 17.8%.3 Free movement of safe and wholesome food is an essential aspect of the internal market in the EU. Consumers are offered a wide range of safe and high quality products coming from all Members States. The European food chain is one of the safest in the world. Food safety measures have formed part of European legislation since the early days of the European Communities. These measures have mainly been developed on a sectorial basis. However, the increasing integration of national economies within the Single Market and the increasing complexity of the food supply chain, such as developments in farming and food processing, and new distribution patterns require a new integrated approach.
∗
Correspondence to: Professor Diána Bánáti, International Life Sciences Institute, 83 Av. Mounier, Brussels, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]
† This paper is based upon a presentation given at the IUFoST Congress, 2012. ‡ Professor Bánáti was the former Chair of the European Food Safety Authority, and is currently the Executive and Scientific Director, International Life Sciences Institute, Europe. Central Environmental and Food Science Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
www.soci.org
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
FACTORS INFLUENCING FOOD SAFETY AND ITS PERCEPTION Our survival, health and welfare depend on the food supply: the production, processing and distribution of safe and healthy foods. Agro-food industries and the food supply chain are of ultimate importance as they provide a sufficient amount of high quality and safe food. Several social and economical factors, technical, technological achievements and changes increase food-borne risks, both real and perceived. Some of these factors are as follows: the increasing number of tourists and business trips and journeys, travelling longer distances faster than ever, mass production in the food industry, the increasing number of sensitive consumers with immune deficiencies, more and more sensitive analytical methods for detection, and last but not least, the role of the mass media. The importance of food safety is increasing and the requirements of consumers are changing. Consumers are more and more aware of the importance of food safety. Technical and technological changes and achievements are more and more difficult to be understood by them.
FOOD SCANDALS Despite the fact that food has never been safer in Europe, consumers are considerably uncertain, anxious and increasingly critical about the safety of their food. The series of food scandals and scares all over the world and in the EU during the last 25 years has resulted in reduced consumer confidence and has pointed out the lack of an integrated approach of the food chain. The series of food scandals in Europe started with the BSE crisis (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), commonly known as ‘mad-cow disease’, in 1986. Consumers could not trust beef anymore and the lack of scientific risk assessment due to the unknown hazard, the conflicting messages broadcast by the media and the non-harmonised risk management decisions and measures led to a general loss of trust in the authorities and in the food chain. The level of risk was not assessed and uncertainties were not properly addressed and explained. The long-lasting fear of European consumers [both of beef and the potential human variant Creutzfeld–Jacob disease (vCJD)] could have been eliminated if a proper risk analysis framework was in place, including a science-based risk assessment. It took a long time for the risks to be quantified. In addition to emerging risks, diminishing risks should also be analysed, managed and communicated. Several important improvements were put in place in the European food safety system as a result of the BSE crisis. These changes highlighted the importance and lack of traceability and the need for an integrated approach in the food chain from the field to the consumer’s table. Risks associated with the contamination of foods were brought into sharp focus again by the so-called dioxin crisis, which soon followed the BSE crisis. There was an immediate and definite consumer response, causing poultry and pork consumption to decrease significantly. The 1999 dioxin crisis is an example of how the problem expanded as a result of a lack of risk assessment and proper risk management. The lack of science-based information delivered in a timely manner did not allow decision-makers to handle the situation efficiently or to estimate uncertainties and avoid consumers’ fears spreading and resulting in a loss of confidence in the food chain. This crisis was one of the major causes of all legislative and institutional changes, including the establishment of the European
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
D Bánáti
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in the EU leading to reform of the whole food safety system. A widespread monitoring programme was implemented and norms for the relevant contaminants were introduced followed by the harmonisation of European norms. A similar dioxin crisis in Europe almost 10 years later (2008) was resolved by a rapid recall of all contaminated products as a result of a proper risk assessment based on a risk analysis and having a traceability system in place. There were several other food-borne outbreaks and emerging risks in the meantime originating in other parts of the world (including the H5N1 and H1N1 ‘bird flu’ crises) when the widespread emerging issues and concerns highlighted that, in the era of globalisation, the food chain links us all and the safety of our food supply has to be ensured globally. The 2011 European outbreak of a new variant of pathogenic Escherichia coli O104:H4 [a Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC)] that claimed several lives in some countries and infected thousands created a high level of concern among consumers and caused huge economic losses. The 2013 meat adulteration scandal, the so-called ‘horse-meat scandal’ was a pan-European problem of adulterated beef products. Foods marketed as containing beef were found to contain undeclared horse meat and other undeclared meats, such as pork. The issue came to light in the middle of January 2013 and has given rise to widespread debate about food safety and labelling. Horsemeat can be a legitimate ingredient for the production of minced meat and meat preparations, provided it is declared on the label. Food business operators can only place horsemeat on the market if horses are slaughtered in approved slaughterhouses and the meat is subject to official veterinary inspection that ensures that it is fit for human consumption. It is not in the culture of many European countries to eat horsemeat and, therefore, we do not expect to find it in a burger. Likewise, for some religious groups, or people who abstain from eating pork, the presence of traces of pig DNA is unacceptable. The problem was first picked up by Irish food inspectors who announced in mid-January 2013 that they had found horsemeat in frozen beef burgers. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) published the findings of a targeted study examining the authenticity of a number of beef burgers, beef meal and salami products available from retail outlets in Ireland. The study, which tested for the presence of horse and pig DNA, revealed the presence of horse DNA in some beef burger products. The FSAI stated that it raised concerns in relation to the traceability of meat ingredients and products entering the food chain.4 Subsequently, the UK informed the European Commission in early February that a UK company had been selling beef lasagne supplied by a French company, which tests showed contained between 80% and 100% horsemeat.5 Concerns first arose about the possibility that horse meat containing traces of the veterinary drug phenylbutazone could enter the human food chain, in spite of regulations that horses treated with it cannot legally be used for human consumption. The EU Health and Consumer Commissioner declared, in mid April, that results from EU-wide DNA testing confirmed that the issue at hand during the horsemeat scandal was fraud rather than food contamination. Less than 5% of tested products had horse DNA and about 0.5% of equine carcasses tested positive for phenylbutazone. The European Medicines Agency and the European Food Safety Authority jointly concluded on the risk assessment on residues of phenylbutazone in horse meat in the context of fraudulent practices. They stated that the health risks for consumers from
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
J Sci Food Agric (2014)
European perspectives of food safety
www.soci.org
the anti-inflammatory drug were extremely limited and the probability of a person being both exposed to it and susceptible to develop related health conditions extremely low, in the range from two in a trillion to one in 100 million. The UK Chief Medical Officer stated that approximately 500–600 burgers containing 100% horse meat would need to be eaten to receive the daily human therapeutic dose.6 It is clear by now that the horsemeat scandal did not pose a public health crisis or a food safety crisis. The issue was one of fraudulent labelling. The scandal revealed a major breakdown in the traceability of the food supply chain. Although this incident was very unusual in both its scale and profile, public confidence was shaken as a result of the fraudulent actions. Consumers changed purchasing habits in light of the horsemeat issue, according to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.7 Their survey reveals significant changes in consumers’ purchasing habits with over half (51%) of people who purchased frozen burgers in the past buying fewer of these products following the horsemeat scandal. Almost two out of every five (39%) of those who consume meat said that they were concerned as the issue unfolded. Of those expressing concern, 88% were concerned about what else might be unknowingly included in other meat products, and 86% showed concern about the presence of chemicals, medicines and antibiotics. Eighty-three % of respondents cited food safety and 76% possible health risks as their concerns. It is considered that financial gain is behind this fraudulent activity given that horsemeat is much cheaper than other meats, such as beef in some countries. The horsemeat scandal has demonstrated the importance of proper controls. When buying processed foods, consumers are not in a position to identify what kind of raw materials are used and what kind of chemicals are added during processing; therefore, they have to rely on labelling as their only source of information. Thus, food control is of crucial importance. Further measures proposed to further minimise the risk include strengthening of the horse passport system, harmonised monitoring of phenylbutazone and its main metabolites, and better reporting of monitoring of veterinary drug residues and other substances across the EU.
FOOD SCARES Besides the series of food scandals, there are various food scares being as controversial – influencing the perception of European consumers (which may differ between Member States of the EU), such as fear of residues, food additives, antibiotics, hormones (even though antibiotics and hormones are not allowed to be used in the EU in animal production), and the application of some new and novel technologies. The emerging risks, the fear of the unknown, especially of new techniques and technologies (e.g., modern biotechnology) and/or factors being considered as ‘unnatural’ or artificial (e.g., hormones in meat and/or cloning animals for food) make consumers worried despite the declaration by experts of safety of their food. The application of nanotechnology in the food sector, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), was expected to be the next new technology to be feared and not accepted, particularly if a societal dialogue was not started early enough, in order to properly inform society with targeted information and to communicate the potential risks and benefits.8 J Sci Food Agric (2014)
The success of new food processing technologies is highly dependent on consumers’ acceptance.9,10 The advantages that a new processing technology has to offer do not necessarily guarantee the success of a product in the marketplace. If consumers do not perceive the benefits of a new technology as relevant and there are doubts about the safe use, its application is threatened. While food scientists may applaud the progress of science, consumers have been known to take a more conservative approach and do not always readily see the benefit of new processing methods.9,10
CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF FOOD SAFETY Despite the fact that food has never been safer, it seems that consumers are considerably uncertain, anxious and increasingly critical about the safety of their food.8 A few years ago, 42% of Europeans considered it likely that the food they eat will damage their health. No single problem or risk stands out as being the culprit. Besides food poisoning (16%), chemicals, pesticides and toxic substances (14%), obesity and overweight (13%) were listed as possible problems or risks associated with food, according to a Europe-wide study.11 Concern regarding food possibly damaging one’s health has increased by 3 percentage points since 2005, according to the most recent EU-wide survey conducted in all 27 Members States of the EU.12 When it comes to public concerns about food-related risks, the survey shows that there is no single, widespread concern mentioned spontaneously by a majority of respondents (this is similar to that of the earlier survey). Nineteen percent of citizens spontaneously cite chemicals, pesticides and other substances as the major concerns. This concern is confirmed by prompted responses: when offered a list of possible issues associated with food, three out of 10 Europeans mention chemical residues from pesticides, antibiotics and pollutants, such as mercury and dioxins, together with cloning animals for food products, as risks to be ‘very worried’ about. EU citizens feel the most confident about being able to personally take steps to avoid diet and health-related issues and bacterial contamination (e.g., Salmonella in eggs) but feel less confident in being able to personally deal with possible problems of chemical contamination (
Revised: 13 January 2014
Accepted article published: 10 February 2014
Published online in Wiley Online Library:
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.6611
European perspectives of food safety† Diána Bánáti*,‡ Abstract Food safety has been a growing concern among European Union (EU) citizens over the last decades. Despite the fact that food has never been safer, consumers are considerably uncertain and increasingly critical about the safety of their food. The introduction of new principles, such as the primary responsibility of producers, traceability, risk analysis, the separation of risk assessment and risk management provided a more transparent, science-based system in Europe, which can help to restore consumers’ lost confidence. The present EU integrated approach to food safety ‘from farm to fork’ aims to assure a high level of food safety within the EU. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry Keywords: food safety; food policy; paradigm change; European Union; consumer protection; food chain; food scandal
INTRODUCTION Despite the fact that food has never been safer, it seems that consumers are considerably uncertain, anxious and increasingly critical about the safety of their food. Food safety has been a growing concern among European Union (EU) citizens over the last few decades. Outbreaks of disease in animals that could be transmitted to humans, or the presence of chemicals above acceptable limits in feed and food, can threaten both the quality and safety of products. A series of food scandals and scares during the last few decades all over the world, including the EU, has reduced consumers’ confidence in food safety. As a result, European food policy, food legislation and the food safety system have changed considerably. There have been enormous developments in recent decades, both in the methods of food production and processing, and in the controls required to ensure that acceptable safety standards are being met.
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS AGRO-FOOD SECTOR The EU is an economic and political union of 28 Member States located in Europe. It was founded in 1993, and was preceded by the European Communities. The GDP is 25 100 euros/inhabitant, on average, in the 28 Member States (ranging from 5200 to 43 200 euros). The life expectancy at birth is 76.7 years for male and 82.6 years for female citizens in the EU.1 The educational attainment is 74.2%/72.7% (male/female) for those aged 25–64 years with at least an upper secondary education (level generally prior to higher education). The gross domestic expenditure on R&D is 2.03%. The creation of the single market and the corresponding increase in trade and general economic activity transformed the EU into a major trading power.2 The EU is a major global trader in food and feed and has entered into international trade agreements. It contributes to the development of international standards which underpin food law and supports the principles of free trade in safe feed and safe, wholesome food. J Sci Food Agric (2014)
The agro-food sector is of major importance for the European economy as a whole. The food and drink industry is a leading industrial sector in the EU. In fact, it is the largest manufacturing sector in terms of turnover and employment generating an annual turnover of 956 billion euros and direct employment for over four million people.3 Two hundred and seventy-four thousand European food and drink companies produce a vast range of foods, satisfying the wide range of evolving needs of Europe’s 500 million consumers. An international comparison shows that the EU is the world’s largest exporter of food and drink products. Despite losing a market share to emerging economies in recent years, Europe’s food and drink industry is still the leading global exporter of high quality, value added foodstuffs. EU exports are worth 65 billion euros, and imports are worth 56 billion euros. The EU market share of global exports is 17.8%.3 Free movement of safe and wholesome food is an essential aspect of the internal market in the EU. Consumers are offered a wide range of safe and high quality products coming from all Members States. The European food chain is one of the safest in the world. Food safety measures have formed part of European legislation since the early days of the European Communities. These measures have mainly been developed on a sectorial basis. However, the increasing integration of national economies within the Single Market and the increasing complexity of the food supply chain, such as developments in farming and food processing, and new distribution patterns require a new integrated approach.
∗
Correspondence to: Professor Diána Bánáti, International Life Sciences Institute, 83 Av. Mounier, Brussels, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]
† This paper is based upon a presentation given at the IUFoST Congress, 2012. ‡ Professor Bánáti was the former Chair of the European Food Safety Authority, and is currently the Executive and Scientific Director, International Life Sciences Institute, Europe. Central Environmental and Food Science Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
www.soci.org
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
FACTORS INFLUENCING FOOD SAFETY AND ITS PERCEPTION Our survival, health and welfare depend on the food supply: the production, processing and distribution of safe and healthy foods. Agro-food industries and the food supply chain are of ultimate importance as they provide a sufficient amount of high quality and safe food. Several social and economical factors, technical, technological achievements and changes increase food-borne risks, both real and perceived. Some of these factors are as follows: the increasing number of tourists and business trips and journeys, travelling longer distances faster than ever, mass production in the food industry, the increasing number of sensitive consumers with immune deficiencies, more and more sensitive analytical methods for detection, and last but not least, the role of the mass media. The importance of food safety is increasing and the requirements of consumers are changing. Consumers are more and more aware of the importance of food safety. Technical and technological changes and achievements are more and more difficult to be understood by them.
FOOD SCANDALS Despite the fact that food has never been safer in Europe, consumers are considerably uncertain, anxious and increasingly critical about the safety of their food. The series of food scandals and scares all over the world and in the EU during the last 25 years has resulted in reduced consumer confidence and has pointed out the lack of an integrated approach of the food chain. The series of food scandals in Europe started with the BSE crisis (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), commonly known as ‘mad-cow disease’, in 1986. Consumers could not trust beef anymore and the lack of scientific risk assessment due to the unknown hazard, the conflicting messages broadcast by the media and the non-harmonised risk management decisions and measures led to a general loss of trust in the authorities and in the food chain. The level of risk was not assessed and uncertainties were not properly addressed and explained. The long-lasting fear of European consumers [both of beef and the potential human variant Creutzfeld–Jacob disease (vCJD)] could have been eliminated if a proper risk analysis framework was in place, including a science-based risk assessment. It took a long time for the risks to be quantified. In addition to emerging risks, diminishing risks should also be analysed, managed and communicated. Several important improvements were put in place in the European food safety system as a result of the BSE crisis. These changes highlighted the importance and lack of traceability and the need for an integrated approach in the food chain from the field to the consumer’s table. Risks associated with the contamination of foods were brought into sharp focus again by the so-called dioxin crisis, which soon followed the BSE crisis. There was an immediate and definite consumer response, causing poultry and pork consumption to decrease significantly. The 1999 dioxin crisis is an example of how the problem expanded as a result of a lack of risk assessment and proper risk management. The lack of science-based information delivered in a timely manner did not allow decision-makers to handle the situation efficiently or to estimate uncertainties and avoid consumers’ fears spreading and resulting in a loss of confidence in the food chain. This crisis was one of the major causes of all legislative and institutional changes, including the establishment of the European
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
D Bánáti
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in the EU leading to reform of the whole food safety system. A widespread monitoring programme was implemented and norms for the relevant contaminants were introduced followed by the harmonisation of European norms. A similar dioxin crisis in Europe almost 10 years later (2008) was resolved by a rapid recall of all contaminated products as a result of a proper risk assessment based on a risk analysis and having a traceability system in place. There were several other food-borne outbreaks and emerging risks in the meantime originating in other parts of the world (including the H5N1 and H1N1 ‘bird flu’ crises) when the widespread emerging issues and concerns highlighted that, in the era of globalisation, the food chain links us all and the safety of our food supply has to be ensured globally. The 2011 European outbreak of a new variant of pathogenic Escherichia coli O104:H4 [a Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC)] that claimed several lives in some countries and infected thousands created a high level of concern among consumers and caused huge economic losses. The 2013 meat adulteration scandal, the so-called ‘horse-meat scandal’ was a pan-European problem of adulterated beef products. Foods marketed as containing beef were found to contain undeclared horse meat and other undeclared meats, such as pork. The issue came to light in the middle of January 2013 and has given rise to widespread debate about food safety and labelling. Horsemeat can be a legitimate ingredient for the production of minced meat and meat preparations, provided it is declared on the label. Food business operators can only place horsemeat on the market if horses are slaughtered in approved slaughterhouses and the meat is subject to official veterinary inspection that ensures that it is fit for human consumption. It is not in the culture of many European countries to eat horsemeat and, therefore, we do not expect to find it in a burger. Likewise, for some religious groups, or people who abstain from eating pork, the presence of traces of pig DNA is unacceptable. The problem was first picked up by Irish food inspectors who announced in mid-January 2013 that they had found horsemeat in frozen beef burgers. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) published the findings of a targeted study examining the authenticity of a number of beef burgers, beef meal and salami products available from retail outlets in Ireland. The study, which tested for the presence of horse and pig DNA, revealed the presence of horse DNA in some beef burger products. The FSAI stated that it raised concerns in relation to the traceability of meat ingredients and products entering the food chain.4 Subsequently, the UK informed the European Commission in early February that a UK company had been selling beef lasagne supplied by a French company, which tests showed contained between 80% and 100% horsemeat.5 Concerns first arose about the possibility that horse meat containing traces of the veterinary drug phenylbutazone could enter the human food chain, in spite of regulations that horses treated with it cannot legally be used for human consumption. The EU Health and Consumer Commissioner declared, in mid April, that results from EU-wide DNA testing confirmed that the issue at hand during the horsemeat scandal was fraud rather than food contamination. Less than 5% of tested products had horse DNA and about 0.5% of equine carcasses tested positive for phenylbutazone. The European Medicines Agency and the European Food Safety Authority jointly concluded on the risk assessment on residues of phenylbutazone in horse meat in the context of fraudulent practices. They stated that the health risks for consumers from
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
J Sci Food Agric (2014)
European perspectives of food safety
www.soci.org
the anti-inflammatory drug were extremely limited and the probability of a person being both exposed to it and susceptible to develop related health conditions extremely low, in the range from two in a trillion to one in 100 million. The UK Chief Medical Officer stated that approximately 500–600 burgers containing 100% horse meat would need to be eaten to receive the daily human therapeutic dose.6 It is clear by now that the horsemeat scandal did not pose a public health crisis or a food safety crisis. The issue was one of fraudulent labelling. The scandal revealed a major breakdown in the traceability of the food supply chain. Although this incident was very unusual in both its scale and profile, public confidence was shaken as a result of the fraudulent actions. Consumers changed purchasing habits in light of the horsemeat issue, according to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.7 Their survey reveals significant changes in consumers’ purchasing habits with over half (51%) of people who purchased frozen burgers in the past buying fewer of these products following the horsemeat scandal. Almost two out of every five (39%) of those who consume meat said that they were concerned as the issue unfolded. Of those expressing concern, 88% were concerned about what else might be unknowingly included in other meat products, and 86% showed concern about the presence of chemicals, medicines and antibiotics. Eighty-three % of respondents cited food safety and 76% possible health risks as their concerns. It is considered that financial gain is behind this fraudulent activity given that horsemeat is much cheaper than other meats, such as beef in some countries. The horsemeat scandal has demonstrated the importance of proper controls. When buying processed foods, consumers are not in a position to identify what kind of raw materials are used and what kind of chemicals are added during processing; therefore, they have to rely on labelling as their only source of information. Thus, food control is of crucial importance. Further measures proposed to further minimise the risk include strengthening of the horse passport system, harmonised monitoring of phenylbutazone and its main metabolites, and better reporting of monitoring of veterinary drug residues and other substances across the EU.
FOOD SCARES Besides the series of food scandals, there are various food scares being as controversial – influencing the perception of European consumers (which may differ between Member States of the EU), such as fear of residues, food additives, antibiotics, hormones (even though antibiotics and hormones are not allowed to be used in the EU in animal production), and the application of some new and novel technologies. The emerging risks, the fear of the unknown, especially of new techniques and technologies (e.g., modern biotechnology) and/or factors being considered as ‘unnatural’ or artificial (e.g., hormones in meat and/or cloning animals for food) make consumers worried despite the declaration by experts of safety of their food. The application of nanotechnology in the food sector, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), was expected to be the next new technology to be feared and not accepted, particularly if a societal dialogue was not started early enough, in order to properly inform society with targeted information and to communicate the potential risks and benefits.8 J Sci Food Agric (2014)
The success of new food processing technologies is highly dependent on consumers’ acceptance.9,10 The advantages that a new processing technology has to offer do not necessarily guarantee the success of a product in the marketplace. If consumers do not perceive the benefits of a new technology as relevant and there are doubts about the safe use, its application is threatened. While food scientists may applaud the progress of science, consumers have been known to take a more conservative approach and do not always readily see the benefit of new processing methods.9,10
CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF FOOD SAFETY Despite the fact that food has never been safer, it seems that consumers are considerably uncertain, anxious and increasingly critical about the safety of their food.8 A few years ago, 42% of Europeans considered it likely that the food they eat will damage their health. No single problem or risk stands out as being the culprit. Besides food poisoning (16%), chemicals, pesticides and toxic substances (14%), obesity and overweight (13%) were listed as possible problems or risks associated with food, according to a Europe-wide study.11 Concern regarding food possibly damaging one’s health has increased by 3 percentage points since 2005, according to the most recent EU-wide survey conducted in all 27 Members States of the EU.12 When it comes to public concerns about food-related risks, the survey shows that there is no single, widespread concern mentioned spontaneously by a majority of respondents (this is similar to that of the earlier survey). Nineteen percent of citizens spontaneously cite chemicals, pesticides and other substances as the major concerns. This concern is confirmed by prompted responses: when offered a list of possible issues associated with food, three out of 10 Europeans mention chemical residues from pesticides, antibiotics and pollutants, such as mercury and dioxins, together with cloning animals for food products, as risks to be ‘very worried’ about. EU citizens feel the most confident about being able to personally take steps to avoid diet and health-related issues and bacterial contamination (e.g., Salmonella in eggs) but feel less confident in being able to personally deal with possible problems of chemical contamination (
