Andrew McKenzie: NZ's food safety among best in the world

Dr Andrew McKenzie

Opinion

The Herald series entitled "What's in Our Food" may have created unnecessary fears and concerns. Thankfully, the true situation with New Zealand food is far less scary. In fact, it's very good.

Consumers demand safe food and New Zealand depends on food exports for much of its economic survival. Our food must be, and is, the best of the best. Government knows this. Producers know this. New Zealanders know this. Regulators internationally would be extremely happy to find their own industries meeting our extremely high levels of compliance.

The area of food safety is complex, and sorting out what is true, what is sound science and what is poor science among all the claims is difficult. Many of the concerns raised in the Herald series were based on poor science, often intermingled with interest-group agendas.

Although nothing in life can be guaranteed 100 per cent safe, our food is of an exceptional standard. We are acknowledged worldwide as a trusted producer of safe food, and more than 80 per cent of our production is exported to the world's most discerning consumers. We can confidently claim it is among the safest anywhere.

The Food Safety Authority was set up to protect consumers here and those of our trading partners. It ensures that food sold here is safe, and that our vital reputation as an exporter of safe food is enhanced.

New Zealand food's pesticide residue results are among the lowest in the world. Over the past two years the authority has conducted thousands of tests. The research shows that just six of these exceeded the regulatory limits.

Each of these six cases was the result of technicalities. Regulatory limits for pesticides are set crop by crop, and in most cases New Zealand did not have a limit for the chemical concerned. This is because the food is not grown here, so registering pesticides for use on it is pointless.

In these cases, a default level of 0.1 mg/kg is used. The foods concerned still met rigorous international standards. It is important to note that regulatory limits are not safety limits; they are many times below a level that could possibly cause harm. The authority's discovery of a presence, albeit at very low levels, of chemical residues in foods does not constitute a health issue.

As technology improves, we can detect ever smaller amounts of chemical residues in food. However, the authority's 2003-04 total diet survey showed a drop of nearly 10 per cent in the number of residues found. This continues a pleasing trend of the past decade.

Giving prominence to a single study over the views of the world's leading food and health organisations, including the United Nations' FAO and WHO, and peer-reviewed research does not help understanding in this complex area.

Antibiotic residues have not been found in the authority's surveys of chicken meat for years. With the exception of a few well-known examples, the concept of a cocktail or synergistic effect of chemical residues has little support among food scientists.

With regard to the sweetener aspartame, both Britain's Food Standards Agency and the European Commission's Scientific Commission on Food have conducted extensive studies and concluded it is safe. This view is also held by the authority and the United States Food and Drug Administration. Controversy on this subject is fuelled mainly by misleading, agenda-driven websites.

In the articles, some valid data was also misinterpreted. For example, there was an inference that, because surveys found a chemical residue in one food sample, that chemical was always present in those foods. That is logically not true. Indeed, most have no detectable residues.

While any level of food-borne illness is too high, the figures used to suggest we are the worst in the developed world are misleading. They are for all cases of gastroenteritis, not specifically those related to food-borne pathogens. New Zealand has more comprehensive reporting systems than many other countries, and reports more types of food-borne illness.

But any rate is too high, and the main cause of food-borne illness is most likely poor food handling, not via consumption of meat. The hygiene of our meat processing is specifically controlled to minimise contamination. But no matter where bacteria come from (food, soil, pets, flies, food handlers, the atmosphere, unclean surfaces), good food handling (clean, cook, cover, chill) will prevent most food-borne illness.

Campylobacter in chicken has been found on a high proportion of chicken meat samples, but generally in very low numbers and the link to food-borne illness is still not clear. The authority is researching why we have high levels of campylobacteriosis.

Chicken that is properly handled and cooked before it is eaten will reduce the risk of illness.

The Food Safety Authority does not act only after dead bodies have been lined up. It acts as soon as there is credible evidence of concern, as with last year's cornflour issue. Also, the authority is reviewing New Zealand's food regulatory programme to ensure consumers have the best protection.

Like the Herald, it believes consumers should "hope that governments and big business can be trusted". It backs its "trust" with an extensive programme of audit, monitoring, surveillance, enforcement and other compliance measures to ensure the industry is meeting its food-safety obligations. This is done with extensive consultation, including consumer groups.

* Andrew McKenzie is the executive director of the Food Safety Authority.