MAKING THE REGION’S FOOD SUPPLIES SAFER · 2018. 10. 9. · PERU Luis Jimenez Dean of Faculty of...

P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 2 a

P A C I F I C E C O N O M I C C O O P E R A T I O N C O U N C I L

P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3

MAKING THE REGION’S FOOD SUPPLIESSAFER

P A C I F I C E C O N O M I C C O O P E R A T I O N C O U N C I L

P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3

MAKING THE REGION’SFOOD SUPPLIESSAFER

ISBN: 0-9714610-0-7

Pacific Food System OutlookS P O N S O R S

The PECC Food and Agriculture Forum extends its thanks for the generous support of the sponsors of the 2002-2003 Pacific Food System Outlook.

For information about the activities of our sponsors see page 26.

Fundación Chilena del PacíficoFundación Chile

P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3 1

Foreword 2

Coord inators and Forecast ing Pane l 4

Mak ing the Reg ion’s Food Supp l ies Safer 6

Investigating Indeterminate Risks 6

Putting Foodborne Illness Fatalities in Perspective 8

Ranking Food Pathogens by Region 10

Examining Outbreaks of Foodborne Disease and Contamination 1 1

Estimating Economic Costs 12

Reacting to Publicity on Foodborne Disease 12

Setting Standards—Public and Private Roles 14

Sharing Information on Foodborne Illness 16

Promoting New Technologies to Enhance Food Safety 18

Recommendations 19

References 20

Websites on Food Safety 21

PECC Members 22

Sponsor Prof i l es 24

Pac i f i c Economic Cooperat ion Counc i l 26

CONTENTS

The Pacific Food System Outlook, brings together food industry experts from the PECC’s 22

participating economies once a year to discuss the situation and outlook for the region’s food

system. We emphasize not just the primary sector but the entire trans-Pacific food system,

including issues relating to infrastructure, transportation and distribution, logistics, value-

chain management, consumer protection, and other areas. Our report this year focuses on

the role of food safety in the region’s food system

Recent highly publicized international food safety incidents can have short- and longer-term impacts on

consumer perceptions and food purchasing patterns. The world’s heightened concern about terrorism also rais-

es concerns about the vulnerabilities of the global food system and the need for a greater public commitment

to food supply monitoring and inspection.

According to analysts contributing to this report, much of the current food system outlook hinges on the

U.S. recovery. Continued growth in China and stagnation in Japan are also important to the region’s economic

outlook. Commodity prices remain low relative to the highs of the mid 1990’s, but are showing signs of recov-

ery given the impact of drought in several areas. The oilseed market is more dynamic, with rapid growth in

production and exports in South America and growing demand in China. The shift from bulk to non bulk

commodities, the lengthening of supply chains, and the rising share of perishable food products in trade are

raising concerns about food safety, the theme and special focus of this year’s meeting and report.

In general, participants viewed data on foodborne illness as unreliable and expressed concern about using

these data to make cross-economy comparisons. While there is some evidence that Hazard Analysis and

Critical Control Points (HACCP)-type programs in the United States and other economies in the region are

having some success in reducing the incidence of foodborne illness, developing economies have less incentive

and resources to implement broadly such programs. Use of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) by exporters

in developing economies, oftentimes driven by requirements in importing countries, can also have benefits in

the domestic market.

The detailed food system profiles of each PECC economy will appear on the US PECC website:

www.pecc.org/food.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Jaime Campos, Chile’s Minister of Agriculture, who opened

our meeting, April 16-18. Chile’s strong dependence on exports of fresh fruit has given it a keen interest in the

importance of food safety in developing and maintaining overseas markets.

Special thanks also go to the efforts of Dr. Eugenia Muchnik and her colleagues at the Fundación Chile for

2 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3

FOREWORD

achieving a very high standard of excellence in the arrangements for this important meeting and to the leader-

ship of Dr. Manfred Wilhelmy, Executive Director of the Fundación Chilena del Pacifico. The meeting was

made possible through the generous support of the Fundación Chilena del Pacifico and Fundación Chile and

three other sponsors (Association of Chilean Exporters, the National Society of Agriculture, and Chile’s

Ministry of Agriculture).

I want to express my thanks to two private sector participants: Thierry Woller, Trans World Quality

Systems Consultant Group, and Ronald S. Bown, Chairman of the Association of Chilean Exporters, for

their participation.

We are most grateful to the individual economists representing 16 economies in the PECC region for

their dedication to and support of this unique multinational project, now in its sixth year. Dr. Jinap Selamat,

Professor, Department of Food Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia played an important role in developing the

food safety theme presented in this report. A special thanks goes to William Coyle (ERS, USDA) and

Constanza Valdes (ERS, USDA) for their continued leadership in producing this report. We also appreciate the

financial support of the Economic Research Service (ERS), and the special interest and support of Praveen

Dixit and Neil Conklin, both of ERS.

Thanks are due Mark Borthwick, executive director of the US National Committee for Pacific Economic

Cooperation, for his continued support; Agnes Prentice of ERS, USDA, for statistical support; Carol

O’Hallaron for editorial services; Joseph Yacinski and Carol Hardy of Yacinski Design for design and produc-

tion; and Liz Hughes of Beach Brothers Printing.

I am grateful to the PECC member committees and the PECC International Secretariat for their contin-

ued help in supporting and guiding this important project.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge Farm Foundation’s financial support for this project.

Walter J. Armbruster

President, Farm Foundation and

Chairman, Pacific Food System Outlook, PECC

October 2002


P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 2

PECC COORDINATORS

Walter J. ArmbrusterChairman, Pacific Food System

Outlook, and President, Farm Foundation USA

William T. CoyleSenior Coordinator, Pacific Food

System OutlookSenior Economist, Market and

Trade Economics DivisionEconomic Research ServiceUS Department of Agriculture

Constanza M. ValdesProject Director, Pacific Food

System OutlookEconomist, Market and Trade

Economics DivisionEconomic Research ServiceUS Department of Agriculture

AUSTRALIA

Terry ShealesChief Commodity Analyst Australian Bureau of Agricultural

and Resource Economics(ABARE)

CANADA

Brad GilmourJosé QuirogaInternational Agri-Food Analysis

Section Agriculture and Agrifood Canada

John GiraldezCanadian Food Inspection Agency

CHILE

Eugenia MuchnikManager, Agroindustrial

DepartmentFundación Chile

CHINA

Wang Zhenyu Assistant Research Fellow China National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(CNCPEC)

ECUADOR

Ines MenciasProfessorNational Polytechnic School

JAPAN

Keiji OhgaProfessorDepartment of Global

Agricultural SciencesGraduate School of Agricultural

and Life SciencesThe University of Tokyo

KOREA

Sei ChoiSenior Research FellowCenter for Agricultural PolicyKorea Rural Economic Institute

MALAYSIA

Mad Nasir ShamsudinProfessor/HeadDepartment of Agribusiness and

Information SystemsUniversity Putra Malaysia

Jinap SelamatProfessor/Deputy DeanDepartment of Food ScienceUniversiti Putra Malaysia


COORDINATORS AND FORECASTING PANEL

MEXICO

Hector PeñaEconomic Analyst Apoyos y Servicios a la

Comercialización Agropecuaria(ASERCA)

Secretaria de Agricultura,Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural,Pesca, y Alimentación(SAGARPA)

NEW ZEALAND

Mark WaltonEconomistNew Zealand Institute of

Economic Research

PERU

Luis Jimenez Dean of Faculty of EconomicsUniversidad Nacional Agraria,

La MolinaLima

THE PHILIPPINES

Salvador P. CateloDeanCollege of Economics and

MangementUniversity of the Philippines

Los Banos

CHINESE TAIPEI

Ching-Cheng ChangResearch Fellow and Division

ChiefThe Institute of EconomicsAcademia Sinica

THAILAND

Ruangrai TokrisnaAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Agricultural and

Resource EconomicsFaculty of Economics Kasetsart University, Bangkok

UNITED STATES

Mark DenbalyChief

Annette Clauson Economist

Jean BuzbyEconomist

Food Markets BranchFood and Rural Economics

DivisionEconomic Research ServiceUS Department of Agriculture

OBSERVER

Marcela CristiniSenior EconomistFundación de Investigaciones

Economicas LatinoamericanasBuenos Aires, Argentina


s income increases for individuals in the PECC (Pacific Economic Cooperation

Council) economies, consumerssharpen their focus on food safety.This new awareness is related todietary changes associated withmore disposable income andurban growth. Better off con-sumers move beyond meetingbasic dietary needs to a keenerinterest in selecting food forattributes such as freshness, quali-ty, healthfulness, and conven-ience. Even lower income con-

sumers are demanding morehealthful foods and cleaner water.In many economies, this dietaryturn means that people purchasemore processed products as wellas meat and a greater variety offruits and vegetables - foods thattend to be perishable, subject tospoilage, and conducive to thetransmission of disease.

Crowding in cities can raisethe potential for the spread offoodborne disease as well, particu-larly if clean water supplies, sanita-tion, and other infrastructure areinadequate. Demographers projectthat PECC’s urban population willnearly double to 2 billion by 2025.This is a rate twice as fast as theoverall population growth. Today,

city dwellers find it convenient toeat more food prepared outside thehome. Sixty percent of foodborneillness, according to one estimate,arises from the food service sector:restaurants, schools, other institu-tions, and large catered gatherings.

These shifts in both thePECC’s diet and locus of mealpreparation require production,processing, and delivery of foodthrough a complex food supplysystem and sometimes long supplychains that increase the time andopportunity for spoilage andgrowth of pathogenic bacteria aswell as contamination of foods by

viruses, parasites, fungi, and theirtoxins. A few decades ago growerscould drive to a neighboring city’sfarmers’ market either minutes or afew hours away and meet con-sumer needs for vegetables andfruits that were in season. Buttoday, city dwellers not only wantmore food diversity, they wanttheir fresh tomatoes and mangoesin the winter too, and it may bethat only farmers in another hemi-sphere can provide them.

For these specialized fooddemands, the PECC economiesdepend on a food system involv-ing trade between economies,long-distance trucking, air freight,and oceanic shipping. Tradereform as well as improved ship-

ping, refrigeration, and logisticshave made meeting these year-round demands possible. Still,extending a supply chain and thusthe time from farm to market,restaurant, or school cafeteriaincreases opportunities for apathogen to grow and contami-nate the food.

A pathogen can find its wayinto food at almost any link in thesupply chain. But some links havegreater potential for contaminationthan others. Food production andfood-processing enterprises inmodern economies tend to growlarger and fewer in number to

achieve economies of scale, keepcosts down, and remain competi-tive. While these large producersand processors are highly consciousof food safety issues, any problemthat develops is more likely tospread an undetected pathogen orother contaminant to a large seg-ment of the population distributedover a wide area. Recent incidents,in both Japan and the UnitedStates, resulted in the spread ofpathogens, affecting hundreds orthousands of people (Table 1).

Investigating Indeterminate Risks

Lack of data, underreporting ofcases, and epidemiological difficul-


MAKING THE REGION’S FOOD SUPPLIES SAFER

“Foods contaminated with unacceptable levels of pathogens and chemical

contaminants or having other hazardous characteristics, impose substan-

tial health risks to consumers and severe economic burdens on individual

communities and nations.” —World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/fsf/fctshtfs.htm)

A

This summary is based on contributions from the Pacific Food System Outlook’s forecasting panel that met in Santiago, Chile, April 16-18, 2002.Special thanks to Mark Denbaly and Jean Buzby for their significant contributions. Also thanks to Dr. Jinap Selamat, Professor, Department of FoodScience, Universiti Putra Malaysia for her leadership in developing the outline on which this paper is based.

F i g u r e 2 Life Expectancy Rising in All PECC Economies

F i g u r e 1 Most Foodborne Cases in US Caused by Unknown Pathogens

Jap

an

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

, Ch

ina

Au

stra

lia

Can

ada

New

Zea

lan

d

Sin

gap

ore

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

Bru

ne

i

Ch

ile

Ko

rea

Mal

aysi

a

Mex

ico

Co

lom

bia

Ch

ina

Ecu

ado

r

Ph

ilip

pin

es

Pe

ru

Th

aila

nd

Vie

tnam

Ind

on

esia

Pap

ua

New

Gu

inea

100%

80

60

40

20

0

KNOWN UNKNOWN

ILLNESSES HOSPITALIZATIONS DEATHS

0

20

40

60

80

100

LIF

E E

XP

EC

TAN

CY

AT

BIR

TH

, IN

YE

AR

S

1960 1980 2000

Source: Pacific Food System Outlook: World Bank Development Indicators, 2002

Source: Mead, Paul S., Laurence Slutsker, Vance Dietz, et. al. “Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States.” US Center for DiseaseControl and Prevention, 1999


ties in tying disease to food con-sumption hamper understandingthe risk and trends of foodborneillness in the PECC region.Although underreporting is mostserious in regions where publicresources are limited, evenresearchers working with data onthe United States make largeadjustments to foodborne mor-bidity and mortality data toaccount for underreporting.

Researchers in someeconomies, such as China, ChineseTaipei, Korea, and New Zealand,report the incidence of foodborneillness is rising in their respectiveeconomies. Yet investigators inMalaysia have reported a drop inthe last few years of food poison-ing, cholera, and typhoid cases,while Australia and the Philippinesreport data-related difficulties inmaking judgments one way or theother. According to the US Centerfor Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), the incidence of sevencommon foodborne bacterial dis-eases in the United States dropped23 percent between 1996 and2001. But new pathogens, such asE. coli O157 and Cyclospora, arealways emerging. The lack of con-sistent and comprehensive datamakes it difficult to establish trendsabout the regional incidence offoodborne illness over time.

Putting Foodborne IllnessFatalities in Perspective

Compared to other causes ofdeath, the best estimates suggestthat foodborne illness ranks low(Table 2). World HealthOrganization (WHO) statisticsshow infectious diseases, ofwhich many foodborne diseasesare a subset, rank well belowheart disease, cancer, and acci-dents as a cause of death world-



T a b l e 1 Se lected Outbreaks of Foodborne

na— not available/not applicable

Sources: Pacific Food System Outlook papers from April 16-18, 2002 meeting in Santiago, Chile; various

Australia 1997 Listeria monocytogenes

Australia 1997 Salmonella

Australia 1999 Salmonella

Australia 2001 Norwalk like virus

Canada (Saskatchewan) 2002 Creutzfeldt-Jakob (human form of BSE)

Canada 2002 Chloramphenicol

Canada 2002 Listeria monocytogenes

Chile 1989 Cyanide

Chile 1999 Salmonella

Chile 2002 E. coli bacteria 0-157

China 2002 Antibiotics

Chinese Taipei(Central Region) 2000-2001 Cadmium or mercury contamination

Chinese Taipei (Taipei City) 2001 Water pollution caused by typhoon

Japan (32 Prefectures) 1996 E. coli bacteria 0-157

Japan 2000 Staphylococcus aureus

Japan 2001-02 BSE

Japan (Chiba and others) 2001 E. coli bacteria 0-157

Japan 2002 High levels of pesticide

Korea 1996 Vibrio

Korea 1999 Salmonella

Korea 2001 E. coli bacteria 0-157

Malaysia 1999 Dioxin

Malaysia 2001 Excessive levels of 3-MCPD, genotoxic carcinogen

New Zealand 1999 Norwalk-like virus

New Zealand 2000 Salmonella

New Zealand 2001 Salmonella

US (Washington State) 1992-93 E. coli bacteria 0-157

US (41 states) 1994 Salmonella

US 1996 E. coli bacteria 0-157

US 1996 Cyclospora cayetanensis

US 1997 E. coli bacteria 0-157

US (Michigan) 1997 Hepatitis A

US 1998-99 Listeria monocytogenes



US (Washington State) 2002 E. coli bacteria 0-157

US (21 states) June 2002 E. coli bacteria 0-157

Country Date Disease/contaminant


Disease and Contaminat ion in the PECC Reg ion

other sources on the Internet and newspapers.

Cross contaminated fruit salad at nursing home 9 na 6

Pork rolls 808 79 na

Unpasteurized orange juice 533 na na

Ill foodhandler 56 na na

Meat from cattle infected with BSE; likely consumed meat in UK na na 1

Imported honey and honey products na na na

Large hypermarket in Western Canada, smoked salmon cream cheese na na na

Several grapes thought to be contaminated na na na

Mayonnaise na na na

Suspected that source is fast food outlet in Santiago na na na

Exports of prawns, honey and rabbit meat to EU na na na

Rice Unknown na na

Prepared box lunches na 120 0

Several items suspected in school lunches, including radish sprouts from a single producer in the Osaka area 13,000 na 13

Leading dairy company produced milk using unhygienic production-line valve 14,555 165 na

Five cases confirmed since Sept. 2001 0 0 0

Meat company 90 5 na

Imported green soybeans na na na

Seafood (clams) 116 43 0

Pork and beef 198 na 2

Pork cutlets 91 6 0

Imported dairy and meat products na na na

Imported savory foods; soups, prepared meals, snacks, and gravy mixes na na na

Oysters 86 na na

Raw eggs na na 1

Mayonnaise 70 na na

Fast food restaurant chain in Washington State, undercooked hamburger 732 na 4

Ice cream company in Minnesota; truck carrying ice cream mix contaminated with infected liquid egg 224,000 na na

West coast juice manufacturer; unpasteurized apple juice 66 na 1

Imported raspberries 1465 na na

Large midwestern food company; ground beef 15 na na

Imported strawberries; point of contamination unknown 20 na na

Large food company; hot dogs and deli meats 101 80 21 (6 miscarriages)

Imported mangoes 79 15 2

Imported cantaloupes Numerous cases na 2

Romaine lettuce served at girls camp 29 1 na

Large midwestern company; ground beef 28 7 0

VectorNo. of people

affected Hospitalized Deaths

wide, even in less developedregions. Non-communicable dis-eases, including heart disease,cancer, and diabetes, are responsi-ble for more than 50 percent ofall deaths globally, according tothe Global Burden of Disease. Andwith the graying of the world’spopulation, better contraceptionand medical care, and more chil-dren surviving to adulthood,researchers project that by 2020the share of non-communicabledisease as the cause of death willincrease to over 70 percent.

The CDC estimates 5,000people die each year from micro-bial pathogens in the UnitedStates. While the number ofdeaths from foodborne pathogens

is relatively small, the incidence ofillness and hospitalization appearsquite significant. The CDC calcu-lates 76 million cases of food-borne illnesses (one case for everyfour in the population) occureach year in the United States and325,000 associated hospitaliza-tions. The young, the elderly, andthose with auto-immune deficien-cies are the most prone. Reflectiveof the problems of data gatheringand disease identification in thisfield, the agency reports unknownpathogens account for more thantwo-thirds of the cited totals(Figure 1).

Note that some experts, despitethe poor data and difficulties inestablishing epidemiological link-ages, claim food and water bornepathogens are responsible for a

large percentage of the world’s 1.5billion cases of diarrhea in childrenunder five years old that result in 3million deaths each year.

In addition to acute illnesscaused by pathogens, there areother widely recognized food safe-ty risks, including:

■ Sequelae or longer-term aftereffects (e.g., neurological, cardiacand kidney diseases and rheuma-toid syndrome) associated withmost acute foodborne illnesses ■ Environmental toxins (e.g.,lead and mercury) and persistentorganic pollutants (e.g., dioxin) ■ Prions associated with bovinespongiform encephalopathy(BSE, also known as “mad cow”disease)

■ Transmission of diseasethrough food from animals tohumans (e.g., tuberculosis)

There are also some perceivedfood safety risks that are moredebatable:

■ Irradiated foods or animalproducts produced with growthhormones and antibiotics ■ Pesticide residues and foodadditives

Food safety concerns can also hin-der international food trade andare intertwined with questionsabout the health consequences offood produced using biotechnolo-gy, the labeling of these foods, andthe uncertainty of their long-termimpact on the environment.

Notwithstanding the threat offoodborne and other diseases, evi-dence suggests that people in

most parts of the world are livinglonger. According to data reportedin 2000, average life expectancy atbirth across the PECC region isnow 60 to 80 years. The bargraph in Figure 2 represents lifespans for 20 of the PECC coun-tries and shows that developingeconomies such as China,Indonesia, and Vietnam have pro-gressed rapidly in the last 40 yearsin extending life expectancy oftheir citizens.

Ranking Food Pathogens by Region

Although cultures and diets acrossthe PECC are highly diverse andlevels of development vary, some

commonality surfaces when rank-ing specific pathogens that arefound in food. Ten of eleveneconomies report Salmonella as aleading cause of foodborne illness(Table 3). The ubiquity ofSalmonella is associated with thewidespread rise in consumption ofmany perishable products acrossthe region. Vibrios and Norwalk-type viruses are important hazardsassociated with consumption offish and shellfish, common inKorea, Chinese Taipei, the UnitedStates and Canada.

While Salmonella,Staphylococcus, and Campylobacterappear to be the more commoncauses of foodborne illnesses, otherpathogens such as Listeria and botulism are less common butmore deadly.



“We cannot open, penetrate, and consolidate markets if we are not able

to guarantee that we are offering a product which is up to the highest

standards of health and safety demanded by our customers abroad.”Honorable Jaime Campos, Chile's Minister of Agriculture; address to the Pacific Food System Outlook

meeting, April 16, 2002, Santiago, Chile

Examining Outbreaks ofFoodborne Disease andContamination Table 1 documents a sampling offood-related outbreaks of diseasein the PECC region in the lastdecade or so. Most commonlyinvolved in these outbreaks areprocessed foods, fresh horticulturalproducts, and meats — thosefoods that are enjoying increasedpopularity consistent with incomeand urban growth. Although mostoutbreaks affect few people andare localized, some affect thou-sands and are much broader inscope: for example, the E. coliinfection of radish sprouts in 1996and dairy products contaminatedby Staphylococcus in 2000 inJapan; and the Salmonella-icecream (1994) and Cyclospora-rasp-

berry (1996) cases in the UnitedStates. While some of these casesare widely publicized, other casesthat are more deadly are lessnoticed, such as the Listeria-processed meats case in the UnitedStates in 1998.

Only 1,000 to 2,000 cases ofListeria are reported annually inthe United States, but the percent-age of people who die from the ill-ness is much higher than frommost other foodborne illness-caus-ing microorganisms. Listeria ismore dangerous because thepathogens it produces can crossfrom the gastrointestinal systeminto the bloodstream and fromthere into other tissue, such as thebrain, or into a fetus. The bacteri-um can also survive both freezingtemperatures and relatively high

temperatures. To kill the pathogenin chicken, for example, it mustbe cooked higher than the recom-mended 160 degrees for destroy-ing less hardy pathogens.

In the United States, at least100 illnesses and 21 deaths,including six miscarriages, werelinked to the spread of Listeria in1998-99. In this outbreak, hotdogs and deli meats, producedunder a number of brands by onemanufacturer, transmitted theListeria-based disease over 13states. The outbreak strain was iso-lated by testing opened andunopened packages of hot dogsmanufactured at a company plantin Michigan as well as anunopened package of deli meatsproduced at the same plant. Thecompany involved recalled thepotentially contaminated lots ofhot dogs and deli meats. AlthoughListeria is most commonly foundin processed meats, thesepathogens can also live in softcheeses, raw meat, and in milkthat has not been pasteurized.

In 2000, Japan’s largest dairycompany generated the economy’sbiggest food poisoning outbreaksince the government beganrecording such cases in 1975.Staphylococcus aureus contaminatedseveral types of milk as well as ayogurt beverage in a productionline valve at a large processing

P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 2 1 1

Rank Asia Pacific North America Europe Post-Soviet Europe

1 Circulatory diseases Circulatory diseases Circulatory diseases Circulatory diseases Circulatory diseases

2 Cancers Cancers Cancers Cancers External causes

3 Respiratory diseases External causes External causes External causes Cancers

4 External causes * Respiratory diseases Respiratory diseases Respiratory diseases Respiratory diseases

5 Digestive diseases Digestive diseases Digestive diseases Digestive diseases Digestive diseases

6 Infectious diseases Liver diseases Liver diseases Liver diseases Infectious diseases

7 Liver diseases Infectious diseases Infectious diseases Infectious diseases NA

* Injuries that are intentional (suicide) and unintentional (accidents)

Source: WHO; Research Group on the Global Future; www.cap.uni-muenchen.de/fgz/statistics/statistics05.htm

T a b l e 2 Leading Cause of Death by Region

Economy Pathogen

Australia Salmonella, Hepatitus A., E. coli

Canada Norwalk-like viruses, Campylobacter, Salmonella

Chile Salmonella, Hepatitus, E. coli

Ecuador Cholera, Salmonella, Typhoid

Korea Salmonella, Vibrio, Staphylococcus

Malaysia Staphylococcus, Salmonella

New Zealand Campylobacter, Salmonella

Peru Salmonella, Vibrio cholerae

Philippines Salmonella, Campylobacter, E.coli

Chinese Taipei Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus

United States Norwalk-like viruses, Campylobacter, Salmonella

Source: Pacific Food System Outlook, economy write-ups, April 2002.

T a b l e 3 Leading Foodborne Pathogens, Selected PECC Economies

plant in Osaka. Not usually fatal,this pathogen from the dairy plantspread from Osaka through eightWestern Prefectures, making14,000 people ill and hospitalizing150 of them. Local authoritiesordered the company to recall allcontaminated products. Unable toidentify the contaminated batchesprecisely, the company was forcedto withdraw all of its productsfrom retailer shelves and shutdown 21 plants for 40 days.

The foodborne pathogen notonly infected individuals but alsostruck the food industry. In theaftermath of the dairy plant inci-dent, the Japanese company’sstock price dropped 40 percent,and its president and seven othertop executives resigned. The com-pany reportedly took out aUS$250 million emergency line ofcredit to compensate consumersmade ill in the incident and helpthe sales outlets that had sufferedlarge losses. Some Japanese schoolcafeterias quit using any of thecompany’s products, includingthose not implicated in the foodpoisoning case, such as cheese.China temporarily bannedimports of the company’s prod-ucts. Ultimately, the outbreakaffected the entire dairy productsindustry in Japan as consumerscut back on milk consumption.

In another example that start-ed in late 1992 and ended in early1993, undercooked hamburger ata leading fast food chain in the USNorthwest caused an outbreak ofE. coli O157:H7, causing 700people to become ill and 4 chil-dren to die. Sales of the chaindropped 80 percent and it took sixmonths for sales to return to pre-outbreak levels. Settlementsthrough litigation amounted toover $13 million.

The company responded by

hiring a food safety expert a weekafter the incident, who laterbecame the chain’s director of qual-ity assurance. After switching meatsuppliers and requiring new suppli-ers to have their products subject tomicrobial testing, the companyimplemented a Hazard Analysisand Critical Control Points(HACCP) system in all its restau-rants. Up to that point, HACCPhad been a tool used primarily infood-manufacturing plants.

Estimating Economic Costs

The examples cited above eluci-date a portion of the general eco-nomic costs posed by foodborneillness. In general, foodborne ill-ness entails cost to:

■ Individuals/households (e.g., medical care, loss of work,and premature death) ■ Industry (e.g., lost businessand trade, product liabilitysuits, additional cost fromapplying systems/techniques to boost food safety) ■ The regulatory and publichealth sectors (e.g., disease surveillance, outbreak investigations).

Estimating these costs is difficult.Most calculations are partial,focusing on the direct cost ofhealthcare and losses to individualproductivity, not the costs to busi-ness and the public sector.Researchers in Australia, which hasa GDP of $445.8 billion (2000),estimated these costs of foodborneillness at $1.7 billion in 1999. InSouth Korea, with a GDP of$764.6 billion (2000), researchersrecently appraised the direct costof food poisoning from meatsalone to be $16 to $28 million peryear, including $7 to $15 millionin medical costs and $9 to $13million for lost productivity. They

claim the Korean economy couldachieve a long-term cost benefitwithin 20 years of $167-290 mil-lion if foodborne illness wasreduced. And in the United States,where the GDP is $9,963 billion(2000), five foodborne pathogenscause health care costs and lostproductivity of $6.9 billion eachyear. These costs are low relative toeach economy’s GDP and reflecttheir partial nature and the fairlylow incidence of serious sicknessand death from foodborne causes.

Reacting to Publicity onFoodborne Disease

Since consumers usually havemany choices about the foods theyconsume and where they consumethem, news of tainted food caninduce strong consumer reaction,sometimes out of proportion tothe real risk of adverse health con-sequences. If, for example, E. coliO157:H7 were discovered in alocal supply of ground beef, manyconsumers might respond bythinking, “Why should I run anyrisk, I’ll just turn to chicken oraway from meat all together forthe time being.” This response canhave a devastating impact on afirm in the food industry and itsemployees or even more broadlyon an entire industry’s reputation,sales revenue, and trade if this typeof response is general. A companyinvolved in the spread of a food-borne pathogen can also facepenalties imposed by courts orgovernment agencies, includingfines, product recalls, and tempo-rary or permanent plant closuresas well as large liability settlementsand associated legalcosts. Potential market and liabili-ty losses are strong incentives forfood firms to ensure the food sup-ply is as safe as possible.




Two cases from differenteconomies in the PECC illustratethe strong consumer reaction toevents related to the foodindustry. In September 2001,Bovine spongiform encephalopathy(BSE) was detected in a five-yearold Holstein cow in Japan’s ChibaPrefecture, the first case discoveredin Asia. Authorities discovered four more infected animals inNovember and December of 2001and in May and August 2002. BSEis a brain-wasting disease caused byprions and is linked to a humanvariant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease,which killed one person in Canadain August 2002 and approximately100 people in Great Britain, whereBSE is most often found.

In the three months followingthe first BSE case detected in acow in Japan, consumers therereduced beef consumption 40-60percent. Figure 3 shows the dra-matic decline of beef imports toJapan after September 2001. Salesat McDonald’s 3,800 Japaneseoutlets dropped sharply, despitereassurances that they only used

imported beef from three BSE-freeeconomies, the United States,Australia, and Canada. Sales ofmeat products at other chains,such as Lotteria, also fell. In 2002,beef consumption is anticipated tobe much lower in Japan than lastyear, causing economic losses forboth beef cattle and dairy produc-ers. Consumption is likely torecover gradually over time.

In a rapid response to thesharp public reaction to the detec-tion of the first BSE case, Japan’sMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry,and Fisheries (MAFF) establisheda system in October 2001 torestrict the movement of cattle atrisk of BSE. The Ministry alsointroduced a ban on the use of alllivestock feed containing meat andbone meal, the suspected vectorsof the disease. To ease the effectsof the mad cow crisis on theJapanese food industry, the gov-ernment developed a buybackscheme. Despite these efforts toameliorate public anxiety, con-sumer confidence was furthershaken when a large Japanese food

company falsely relabeledAustralian and American beef asJapanese beef to take advantage ofthe buyback scheme.

Another example of sharp reac-tion to a food supply problemoccurred in the United States withnegative outcomes for both theChilean and US food industries. InMarch 1989, an anonymous callerto the US Embassy in Santiago,Chile, claimed that Chilean fruitbound for the United States wasinjected with cyanide. A US Foodand Drug Administration (FDA)inspector in Philadelphia, wheremost Chilean fruit enters theUnited States, discovered in a ship-ment two grapes that were punc-tured and a third that appeared slit.After testing positive for a non-lethal dose of cyanide, the FDAissued an order banning entry ofChilean fruit into the UnitedStates and requiring the destruc-tion of all Chilean fruit then in USmarketing channels. Consumers,alerted by the media, were encour-aged to destroy any Chilean fruitin their possession, and grocers

F i g u r e 3 Japan’s Beef Imports Drop in Aftermath of First BSE Case

Jan. 2000 Jan. 2001 Jan. 2002

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

100

0 M

ET

RIC

TO

NS

The Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(MAFF) reported its first suspected case of bovinespongiform encephalopathy (BSE) September 10, 2001.The suspected case was a five-year-old Holstein cowfrom a dairy farm in Chiba Prefecture.

September 2001

Source: World Trade Atlas

were instructed to remove allChilean fruit from their shelves.

Four days later, after Chileadopted certain safety measuresand no further contamination wasdiscovered, the United States liftedthe ban on Chilean grapes. But inthe meantime, the incident affect-ed half of Chile’s grape productionthat season, resulting in the loss ofmore than 20,000 jobs. The banadversely affected not only produc-ers, but also all the commercialpoints along the supply chain ofthe Chilean fruit export industry,with losses estimated at more than$400 million.

Setting Standards - Public and Private Roles

A major government role inreducing the risk of foodborne ill-ness is to encourage internationalcooperation and the sharing ofdata on the subject to enable gov-ernments and industry to mitigaterisks and the spread of foodborneillnesses quickly. Because theeconomies in PECC are nowmore intertwined via trade,tourism, and capital flows, theyshare a greater community interestin controlling and reducing therisk of foodborne illness. Indeed,many of the outbreaks summa-rized in Table 1 allegedly arisefrom imported food. If economiesengage in food products trade,consumers need assurances thatimported products are safe andmeet acceptable standards of qual-ity and healthfulness.

Governments in the PECCregion often authorize several pub-lic agencies to exercise jurisdictionover food safety, sometimes usingextensive regulatory law. In someeconomies a complicated web ofoverlapping bureaucratic responsi-bilities hinders food safety enforce-

ment and implementation. In aneffort to consolidate food safetyresponsibilities under one entity,New Zealand created the NewZealand Food Safety Authority in2002. State or municipal authori-ties in New Zealand are responsiblefor enforcing food safety standardsat the retail level. Regulatoryresponsibilities are shared by agen-cies focused on production andtrade of agricultural and fisherycommodities and by those concen-trated on downstream issues relatedto food processing and marketing.

Because of limited publicresources and the strong privatesector incentives for promotingfood safety, some PECC govern-ments are implementing risk man-agement systems that grant busi-nesses flexibility in their perform-ance of operations as long as therequired food safety outcomes areachieved. These systems rely on amodel that delineates the follow-ing sector roles and implementa-tion activities:

■ Government acting as the regulator, setting appropriatesanitary standards ■ Industry taking full responsi-bility for producing food prod-ucts that conform to those stan-dards, using risk-based manage-ment plans ■ Objective auditors verifyingcompliance with standards.

Consistent with this model,Hazard Analysis and CriticalControl Points (HACCP) is a sys-tem increasingly adopted by gov-ernments and the food industrythat identifies potential sources offood safety hazards and establishesprocedures to prevent, eliminate,or reduce these hazards. TheHACCP system builds on GoodAgricultural Practices (GAP) thatensure a clean and safe workingenvironment for employees while

eliminating the potential for foodcontamination and is often inte-grated with ISO 9000 practicesthat are oriented toward meetingcustomer requirements. HACCPis mandatory in several PECCcountries for certain perishableproducts, some of which areimportant to export trade:processed fish in Canada; seafoodin Malaysia destined for export tothe European Union and theUnited States; meat and poultryprocessors and slaughterhouses inthe United States; all slaughter-houses in South Korea (by 2003);and seafood and dairy products inNew Zealand.

In other PECC economies andfood sectors, HACCP is encour-aged but voluntary. In someinstances, food industry organiza-tions may mandate use of aHACCP system by their members,such as the Frozen Seafood Unionin Chinese Taipei and the MeatIndustry Council in New Zealand.Some export-dependent industrieshave adopted HACCP voluntarily,including Chile’s fruit and Peru’sasparagus industries, in an effort todifferentiate their products asbeing safe and to meet thedemands of importers. While somespillover benefits accrue to thedomestic economy, most are cap-tured by the export sectors.Companies must weigh the payofffrom voluntary adoption of aHACCP system against itscosts. Demands by foreign buyersregarding certification and suchrequirements as traceability can becostly and variable, particularly forsmall and medium-sized firms inless developed economies. Forexample, regulations imposed byEurope may not be the same asthose imposed by the US or Japan.

In the Philippines, adoption ofHACCP has been slow and



encounters resistance from the localfood industry that views the guide-lines as restrictive andcostly. However, better standardsand more effective controls, espe-cially among small and less modernfarms, are needed to contain theoccasional outbreaks of Salmonella,Camphylobacter, and E. coli.

The use of internationally rec-ognized quality management sys-tems is particularly prevalent inNew Zealand’s primary industries,such as kiwifruit and apple grow-ing, and sheep, beef, and dairyfarming along with their relatedprocessing industries. NewZealand exports significantamounts of these food items; theadoption of HACCP has beenpartly motivated by a desire to dif-ferentiate New Zealand’s productsin the international marketplace ashigh-quality and safe.

In Canada, 327 establishmentsare certified as HACCP-compli-ant, and another 337 plants, most-ly meat processing establishments,are operating under HACCP prin-ciples and are awaiting recogni-

tion. Non-meat industries areencouraged to begin incorporatingHACCP principles into processingand food preparation practices inanticipation that compliance willbecome mandatory.

In Malaysia, 85 food firmshave applied for certificationunder the HACCP system, and 55have successfully obtained certifi-cation. The majority of these arefrom the seafood industry. Forlarge firms (150 full time workerswith annual sales more thanUS$6.6 million), the cost forHACCP certification is US$1,186for a new application, US$724 foreach additional product, andUS$26 for certification renewal.Small and medium firms (lessthan 150 workers with annualsales not more than US$6.6 mil-lion) are given discounts of 28percent for the new application,and seven percent for each addi-tional product. These costs, how-ever, are minor relative to the costsof adopting a HACCP system.

The public sector in the PECCregion also has an important role

in food safety education, technolo-gy development, internationalcooperation, and data collectionand surveillance. Three principalareas of publicly supported foodsafety training and education pro-grams are covered by membereconomies: training on HACCPsystems, food safety education forhandlers in the food service sector,and programs for consumers onhow to reduce their risks of food-borne illness in the home.

Training in food hygiene andhandling, for example, hasincreased substantially in Chileduring the past few years. Theagency channeling public resourcesto this area reports 403 coursesand 14,000 students in 2000.Since 1996, Malaysia’s Ministry ofHealth has administered mandato-ry training programs for food han-dlers to ensure greater hygiene inpreparation of food for sale. TheMinistry of Health has since estab-lished the Food Handlers TrainingInstitute, which conducts a com-pulsory food safety program for alloperators of food stalls and restau-


WHAT IS CODEX ALIMENTARIUS?

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established by resolutions of the Food and Agricultural Organization(1961) and the World Health Organization (1963). Over the past 40 years it has become the global referenceon food standards for consumers, food producers and processors, national food control agencies and the

international food trade. More than 160 countries are members. The Codex system gives countries an opportunity to participate in formulating, assessing and harmonizing

food quality and safety standards and ensuring their global implementation. It has encouraged food-related scien-tific and technological research, raising the world community’s general awareness of food safety and relatedissues. It also has led governments to take legislative action to improve the quality and safety of food and to mini-mize the hazard of foodborne illness. While the interest in the Codex has grown along with food trade, in practiceit is difficult for many countries to accept Codex standards because of differing legal, administrative, and politicalsystems. Nevertheless, an increasing number of countries are aligning their national food standards, or parts ofthem, with those of the Codex. This is particularly so in the case of additives, contaminants and residues.

The Codex Alimentarius codifies food standards for commodities, hygienic and technological practices, pesti-cide residues, guidelines for contaminants, and testing and assessment for pesticides, food additives, and veteri-nary drugs.

Under the Uruguay Round Agreement (1994), the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreementcites Codex standards, guidelines, and recommendations as the preferred international standards for facilitatinginternational trade in food. Thus, the Codex has become the benchmark against which national food standardsand regulations are evaluated within the legal context of the Uruguay Round Agreement.

Source: Excerpted from Understanding the Codex Alimentarius; FAO and the World Health Organization; http://www.codexalimentarius.net/


rants. However, only about100,000 out of two million foodoperators in Malaysia have attend-ed this program.

In a consolidated effort toreduce foodborne illness, provin-cial governments across Canadaworked with industry associationsand consumer, environmental,and health groups to create a pro-gram called the “CanadianPartnership for Consumer FoodSafety Education.” The partner-ship informs Canadians about safefood-handling techniques toreduce the risk of microbial con-tamination. The “Thermy theThermometer” program in theUnited States is an example of apublic campaign to encourageproper meat cooking at home.And New Zealand’s Food SafetyPartnership promotes four safetyactions for consumers: cleanhands and utensils, thoroughcooking of meats, adequately cov-ering food before and after cook-ing, and storage of perishables atlow temperatures.

International efforts to harmo-nize food safety standards as wellas regional agreements have helpedto facilitate trade and instill greaterconsumer confidence that import-ed products are at least as safe asdomestic products. The need foreconomies to align their interna-tional standards for food safety onthe basis of sound science hasgrown with trade and inspiredWHO and the Food andAgricultural Organization to cre-ate CODEX some 40 years ago(see box). CODEX is used as aglobal reference for food standardsby many regional organizations inwhich PECC members participate(i.e., APEC, NAFTA, ASEAN,and CER) (Table 4). These organ-izations acknowledge the impor-tance of food safety and common

standards to facilitate food trade,as shown, for example, in APEC’s1999 Food System Initiative.

The ASEAN subcommitteeon Food Science and Technologywas set up to undertake collabora-tive R&D on food safety andquality assurance systems, includ-ing nutritional quality, improve-ment of existing technologies, andthe development and strengthen-ing of the scientific basis for tech-nology development and innova-tion. The leading harmonizationagreement in the region is theAustralia New Zealand FoodAuthority (ANZFA). ANZFA’skey responsibility is the develop-ment of food standards for theAustralia New Zealand FoodStandards Code, the sole foodcode for both countries.

NAFTA created a committeeon sanitary and phytosanitary(SPS) measures to facilitateimprovement in food safety andsanitary conditions and to align

SPS measures across Mexico,Canada, and the United States.

Sharing Information onFoodborne Illness

Sharing data is an important partof disease surveillance, and severalorganizations are cooperating in the tracking of foodborne ill-ness, facilitated by use of theInternet. APEC’s EINet(Emerging Infections Network) isa global network intended toaddress containment of infectiousdiseases, including some food-borne diseases, regionally andglobally. WHO, with the partici-pation of 113 countries, has aglobal surveillance system forsome foodborne diseases.PulseNet is a US laboratory-basedsurveillance system, using DNAfingerprinting, for several food-borne pathogens, including E.coli 0157:H7, Salmonella, Shigella,Listeria, Campylobacter, C. perfrin-

Australia X X X X

Brunei X X X

Canada X X X X

Chile X X X

China X X X

Colombia X X

Ecuador X X

Hong Kong China X X

Indonesia X X X X

Japan X X X

Korea X X X

Malaysia X X X X

Mexico X X X X

New Zealand X X X X

Peru X X X

Philippines X X X X

Russia X X

Singapore X X X X

Chinese Taipei X X

Thailand X X X X

United States X X X X

Vietnam X X X

T a b l e 4 PECC Membership in Global and Regional Agreements


PECC MEMBERS WTO CODEX APEC ASEAN NAFTA CER


gens, and cholera. The systemfacilitates prompt identification ofoutbreaks and timely food prod-uct recalls when necessary.PulseNet has an internationaldimension: Canada joined it in2000, and scientists from Japan,Hong Kong China, and ChineseTaipei have been trained onit. FoodNet is another US surveil-lance system for foodborne illness,tracking population-based inci-dence rates, epidemiologicaltrends, hospitalizations, anddeaths from selected pathogens.

An example of how interna-tional communication and sharingof data can work in identifyingfoodborne pathogens and prevent-ing their spread is shown inJennifer Ackerman’s article onPulseNet’s detection of the causefor a foodborne illness first detect-ed in Virginia. The PulseNet sys-tem matches strains of microbesthrough DNA fingerprintingenabling epidemiologists to tietogether illnesses in different partsof the country and to begin aprocess of investigation to find a

common cause. Ackerman writes:In January 2000 public health offi-

cials in Virginia noted an unusual

cluster of patients sick with food

poisoning from one strain of

Salmonella. Using PulseNet, the

CDC identified 79 patients in 13

states who suffered infection from

the same strain of the microbe.

Fifteen had been hospitalized with

severe bloody diarrhea; two had

died. The common factor? All had

eaten mangoes during the previous

November and December.

An investigation of the impli-

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE)—A brain-wasting disease caused by prions; linked to a humanvariant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD).

DIOXIN—A general term describing a group of hundreds of chemicals that are highly persistent in the environ-ment. The most toxic compound is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD. The toxicity of other dioxins andchemicals such as PCBs that act like dioxin are measured in relation to TCDD. Dioxin is a by-product of manyindustrial processes involving chlorine, including waste incineration, chemical and pesticide manufacturing andpulp and paper production.

EPIDEMIOLOGY—Branch of medicine that investigates the causes and control of epidemics.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD—Contains a gene or genes which have been artificially inserted instead of theplant acquiring them through pollination. The inserted gene sequence may come from another unrelated plant, orfrom a completely different species. Transgenic Bt corn, for example, which produces its own insecticide, containsa gene from a bacterium. All crops have been genetically modified from their original wild state by domestication,selection and controlled breeding over long periods of time (http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/what.html).

GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAP)—Guidelines established to ensure a clean and safe working environ-ment for all employees while eliminating the potential for contamination of food products. Some practices focuson worker hygiene, packaging, storage, field sanitation, product transportation, and cooler operations.

HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS (HACCP)—A management system in which food safetyis addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material pro-duction, procurement, and handling to manufacturing, distribution, and consumption of the finished product. Thissystem has been adopted by many firms around the world and is mandatory in some sectors in some economies.

ISO 9000—A standard for Quality Management Systems; ISO registration is rapidly becoming mandatory forcompanies worldwide. The ISO 9000 standard is generic and independent of specific industries or economic sec-tors. Some of the management principles promoted for improving an organization’s performance include cus-tomer focus, involvement of employees, continual improvement, factual approach to decision making, and mutual-ly beneficial supplier relationships.

PRIONS—Proteins that occur in the brains of mammals. The normal function of prion proteins is to protect thebrain against dementia and other degenerative problems associated with old age. Sometimes, “rogue” prions areproduced by genetic mutations. In addition to causing disease through inherited genetic mutations, mutant prionsare capable of turning into rogue disease agents. Transmitted from an infected animal or human to a new host,they convert any normal prions they encounter into copies of themselves. This conversion process eventuallyresults in spongiform encephalopathies such as BSE and CJD.

SEQUELA—A diseased condition following, and usually resulting from, a previous disease.


cated fruit led to a single large

mango farm in Brazil. When a

team of health officials visited the

farm, they discovered that tanks

used to dip the mangoes in warm

water to control fruit fly infesta-

tion, and then in cool water to cool

the fruit, were open to the air.

There were toads and birds around

the tanks and feces in the water. It

likely was the cold rinse that caused

the mangoes to absorb the tank

water and the pathogens it con-

tained, including a strain of

Salmonella (Ackerman, pp. 20-21).

Promoting New Technologiesto Enhance Food SafetyBoth the public and commercialsectors encourage the developmentof technologies to complementHACCP management techniquesin improving the detection andreduction of foodborne pathogens.Technologies proven to be valu-able in keeping food safe, includepost-package pasteurization ofprocessed meats, x-ray and electri-cal beam technology to kill dan-gerous bacteria on fresh produceand in packaged foods, and ozone

sprays for killing pathogens fasterthan traditional approaches.Sensors and other techniques forrapid detection of microbial con-tamination can also be used toidentify and then contain thespread of E. coli, Salmonella, andother pathogens. The APEC FoodSystem Initiative calls for the cre-ation of a “food technology cul-ture” in which the benefits of foodtechnology to make the food sys-tem safer and more efficient aredisseminated throughout theregion.


T a b l e 5 Some Impor tant Examples of Foodborne Pathogens

Salmonella Bacterium Common mild forms cause diarrhea, cramping, fever, chills and sometimes vomiting

Staphylococcus aureus Bacterium Produces a toxin that causes sudden onset of nausea, vomiting and sometimes diarrhea. Usually over in less than one or two days

Campylobacter jejuni Bacterium Mild to moderate illness with abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever, nausea, sometime vomiting

Clostridium perfingens Bacterium Produces a toxin that causes sudden acute abdominal pain and diarrhea, usually over in one day or less

Cyclospora cayetanensis Parasite Causes watery diarrhea, loss of appetite, weight loss, abdominal bloating andcramping, nausea, fatigue, and low-grade fever.

Clostridium botulinum Bacterium Causes double vision, droopy eyelids, trouble with speaking and swallowing and difficulty with breathing. Without treatment death may result from suffocation because nerves can no longer stimulate breathing.

E. coli O157:H7 Bacterium Can cause a rare illness with severe, bloody diarrhea and kidney failure

Listeria monocytogenes Bacterium Can cause a rare illness with fever and diarrhea; in severe cases can lead to meningitis and death

Shigella Bacterium Causes mild to severe symptoms, including cramps, fever, chills, and sometimesbloody diarrhea

Toxoplasma gondii Parasite A parasite that causes a very sever illness that can produce central nervous system disorders. Chiefly a problem for pregnant women and people with immune disorders

Vibrio vulnificus Bacterium Causes a rare illness with vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. Severe casescause dangerous infection of bloodstream

Norwalk-type Virus Causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. Headache and low-grade fever may also occur. Persons with this infection usually recover within 2-3 days without serious or long-term health effects.

Yersinia enterocolitica Bacterium Causes a mild to moderate illness with vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain

Source: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences, 1994; “As danger breeds in familiar foods, caution is

Cyclospora Infection http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/cyclospora/factsht_cyclospora.htm.

Pathogen Type Symptoms

RecommendationsThe PECC needs a strong commit-ment to generate more comprehen-sive data on the incidence of food-borne illness and its causes and toshare this information around theregion. Better data will ameliorateuncertainties and enhance riskanalysis to enable more rapid identi-fication, mitigation, and elimina-tion of the threat from an outbreak.Pinning down which pathogens arethe major culprits and where in thefood supply chain they get theirstart will reduce the human toll and

help reduce uncertainty faced byfood suppliers. While deliberatecontamination of the region’s foodsupply has been rare, it now needsto be given greater considerationalong with other possible means ofcontamination.

International cooperation is anecessary dimension in data andinformation development andsharing because of the substantialrole of trade in disease outbreaksand in other food safety issues.

Similarly, better data andresearch will inspire the public’s

confidence in governments’ abilityto assess the actual risk of food-borne illness with any given out-break and to respond accordingly.This will also help the food sector;better information should make theconsumer response to foodborneevents more consistent with actualrisks. Uncertainty about food safetyis the enemy of both rationalbehavior and business investmentin the region’s food system.

PECC member economiesmust promote the development ofsafe technologies that will preventinitial contaminations, disinfectfoods more effectively, and detectpathogens and other disease causingfood-borne agents more quickly.

Public and private institutionsneed to work cooperatively to har-monize science-based standards andimplement practices aligned withHACCP in food processing andfood service. These practices havebeen shown to be effective inreducing the incidence of somefoodborne pathogens in theUS. Adoption of HACCP has beenvoluntary in many export sectors inthe PECC because of the strongincentive for these businesses to dif-ferentiate their product as being“beyond reproach” from the stand-point of food safety and to establishcredibility with buyers. The highcost of implementation of HACCPby mid- and small- sized firms mayrequire public support.

Food safety is a concern of allpeople regardless of income. Broadeducational campaigns on minimiz-ing the consumption of raw animalproducts, properly cleaning andcooking meat and produce, usingrefrigeration, and boiling watermust be implemented, continued,and expanded to all income groups.

Public and private sectorsworking together can make theregion’s food supply safer.


Raw and undercooked eggs, undercooked poultry and meat, 6 to 48 hours dairy products, seafood, fruits and vegetables

High-protein foods; foods handled during preparation; tolerates 2 to 7 hours salty foods (e.g., cooked hams, dairy products)

Associated with raw and undercooked meat and poultry, raw milk, 1 to 7 days shell fish and untreated water

Most outbreaks from meat and poultry products and beans; 8 to 16 hours foods mishandled in food service establishments.

Spread by water or food contaminated with infected stool; 1 week outbreaks linked to various types of fresh produce.

Most illness due to home canned vegetables, meat or fish; 12 to 36 hours occasionally from mishandling in food service.

Meat, especially undercooked or raw hamburger, raw milk and 3 to 7 days produce

Improperly processed meats and dairy products, raw and 4 days to undercooked meat, poultry, seafood and produce several weeks

Thrives in the human intestine and is spread by infected food 1 to 7 days handlers

Meat, primarily pork Unknown

Raw or undercooked seafood 16 hours

Contaminated shellfish and prepared foods handled by infected 1 to 2 days workers

Infection is most often acquired by eating contaminated food, 4 to 7 days especially raw or undercooked pork products.

the key,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 31, 1998; Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fact Sheet,

Sources/VectorsIncubation

period


Maugh, Thomas H. “WorldwideStudy Finds Big Shift in Causesof Death.” Los Angeles Times,Sept. 16, 1996.

Murray, Christopher J.L. andAlan D. Lopez (eds). The GlobalBurden of Disease. AComprehensive Assessment ofMortality and Disability fromDiseases, Injuries, and Risk Factorsin 1990 and Projected to 2020.Cambridge: Harvard School ofPublic Health, 1996.

Unnevehr, Laurian and Roberts,Tanya. “Food Safety Incentives ina Changing World FoodSystem.” Food Control. Vol. 13,No. 2. March 2002.

World Health Organization,Department of CommunicableDisease Surveillance andResponse. “Global OutbreakAlert and Response. Reportof a WHO Meeting.” WHO/CDS/2000.3. Geneva: WHO,Department of CommunicableDisease Surveillance andResponse, April 26-28, 2000.

Ackerman, Jennifer. “Food: HowSafe? How Altered?” NationalGeographic. Vol. 201, No. 5.Washington, DC: May 2002.

American Museum of NaturalHistory. Epidemic! The World ofInfectious Disease. On-line exhibi-tion from 2-27-99 to 9-6-99.Washington, DC: AmericanMuseum of Natural History,1999; available from http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/epidemic/

APEC Infectious Disease StrategyMeeting. On-line notes frommeeting, March 23, 2002.Atlanta, Georgia, 2002; availablefrom www.apec.org/infectious.

Bredahl, Maury E. and ErinHolleran. “Technical Regulationsand Food Safety in NAFTA,” inHarmonization/Convergence/Compatibility in Agriculture andAgri-Food Policy: Canada, UnitedStates and Mexico, eds. R.M.A.Lyons, D. Knutson, Karl Mielkeand Daniel Sumner. Winnipeg:University of Manitoba, 1997.

Buzby, Jean. “Children andMicrobial Foodborne Illness.”Food Review. Vol. 24, Issue 2.Washington, D.C: EconomicResearch Service, USDA,October 2001.

Council for Agricultural Scienceand Technology, FoodbornePathogens: Risks and Consequences.Task Force Report, No. 122.Ames: CAST, September 1994.

Crutchfield, Stephen R. andTanya Roberts. “Food SafetyEfforts Accelerate in the 1990’s.”Food Review. Volume 23, Issue 3.Washington, DC: EconomicResearch Service, USDA, March2001.

Eyles, Michael J. “MicrobialConcerns of the Pacific RimCountries and Implications forHarmonizing Free Trade.” Dairy,Food and EnvironmentalSanitation. Vol. 14, No. 8. DesMoines, Iowa: InternationalAssociation for Food Protection,1994.

Hall, Charles, Julieta Ugaz, andJosé Luis Dibos. “Effects of FoodQuality Management Systems onUS-Mexico Trade.” USDACooperative Agreement #43-3-AEK-9-80007, unpublished finalreport. Texas A&M University,December 2001.

Mead, Paul S., Laurence Slutsker,Vance Dietz, et al. “Food-RelatedIllness and Death in the UnitedStates.” Emerging InfectiousDiseases. No. 5. Atlanta: Centerfor Disease Control andPrevention, Sept-Oct. 1999.

REFERENCES


WEBSITES ON FOOD SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:

■ Asian Food Information Center—http://www.afic.org/

■ APEC Emerging Infections Network (EIN)—http://www.apec.org/infectious/index.html

■ Codex Alimentarius—http://www.codexalimentarius.net/

■ The Pan American Health Organization—http://www.paho.org/

■ World Health Organization—http://www.who.int/en/

■ Food Safety Programme—http://www.who.int/fsf/

NATIONAL AND OTHER SOURCES:

■ Canadian Food Inspection Agency—http://www.inspection.gc.ca/

■ Gateway to Government Food Safety Information—http://www.foodsafety.gov/

■ Food Standards Australia New Zealand—http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/

■ Food Quality Control Division, Ministry of Health, Malaysia— http://dph.gov.my/division/fqc/index.htm

■ Health Canada Food Program—http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/e_index.html

■ Hong Kong Food and Environmental Hygiene Department—http://www.info.gov.hk/fehd/safefood/index.html

■ Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare—http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/index.html

■ US Center for Disease Control and Prevention—http://www.cdc.gov/

■ Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet)—http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/

■ National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne Disease Surveillance (PulseNet)—http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/pulsenet/pulsenet.htm

■ USDA, Economic Research Service—http://www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/SafeFood/index.htm

■ USDA-FDA: Foodborne Illness Education Center—http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodborne/fbindex/008.htm

■ USDA, Food Safety Education and Consumer Information, Food Safety and Inspection Service—http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/consedu.htm

■ University of Maryland, Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food Safety RiskAnalysis Clearinghouse—http://www.foodriskclearinghouse.umd.edu/

ANZFA—Australia New Zealand Food Authority

APEC—Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum

ASEAN—Association of South East Asian Nations

BSE—Bovine spongiform ecephalopathy

CDC—US Center for Disease Control and Prevention

CER—Closer Economic Relations (Australia and NewZealand)

FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations

FDA—US Food and Drug Admistration

GAP—Good Agricultural Practices

GDP—Gross Domestic Product

GMO-Genetically modified organisms

HACCP—Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Pointssystem

ISO—International Standards Organization

NAFTA—North American Free Trade Agreement

PECC—Pacific Economic Cooperation Council

PFSO—Pacific Food System Outlook

SPS—Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

WHO—World Health Organization

WTO—World Trade Organization

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE PACIF IC FOOD SYSTEM OUTLOOK

PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION COUNCILPacific Economic Cooperation

Council InternationalSecretariat

4 Nassim RoadSingapore 258372Tel: 65-6737 9822Fax: 65-6737 9824http://www.pecc.net

AUSTRALIAAustralian Pacific Economic

Cooperation Committee(AUSPECC)JG Crawford BuildingAustralian National UniversityCanberra ACT 0200AustraliaTel: 61-2-6125 0567Fax: 61-2-6125 0169http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/

auspecc/aust.html

BRUNEI DARUSSALAMBrunei Darussalam National

Committee for PacificEconomic Cooperation(BDCPEC)

Department of MultilateralEconomics

Ministry of Foreign AffairsBandar Seri Begawan BD 2710Brunei DarussalamTel: 673-2-261 177Fax: 673-2-261 620

CANADACanadian National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(CANCPEC)

Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada666-999 Canada PlaceVancouver, BC, V6C 3E1CanadaTel: 1-604-684-5986Fax: 1-604-681-1370http://www.asiapacific.ca/

CHILEChilean National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(CHILPEC)

Chile Pacific FoundationAv. Los Leones 382, Of. 701ProvidenciaSantiago, ChileTel: 56-2-334 3200Fax: 56-2-334 3201http://www.funpacifico.cl/ingles/

index.html

CHINAChina National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(CNCPEC)

China Institute of InternationalStudies

3 Toutiao TaijichangBeijingChina 100005Tel: 86-10-6513 1421Fax: 86-10-6523 5135http://www.pecc.net.cn/

COLOMBIAColombia National Committee

for Pacific EconomicCooperation (COLPECC)

Ministry of Foreign AffairsCalle 10 No. 5-51Santafe de BogotaColombiaTel: 57-1-283 9549Fax: 57-1-283 8441

ECUADOREcuadorian Committee for the

Pacific Economic CooperationCouncil (ECPECC)

Avenida 10 de Agosto y Carrion, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, QuitoEcuadorTel: 593-2-2501-197/2561-215

(ext. 253) Fax: 593-2-2566-176/2563-201

HONG KONG, CHINAHonk Kong Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(HKCPEC)

Trade & Industry Department 17/F, Trade & Industry

Department

700 Nathan RoadKowloonHong Kong, ChinaTel: 852-2398-5305Fax: 852-2787-7799http://www.hkcpec.org/

INDONESIAIndonesia National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(INCPEC)

Centre for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS)

Jalan Tanah Abang III/23-27 Jakarta 10160IndonesiaFax: 62-21-386 5532Tel: 62-21-384 7517

JAPANJapan National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(JANCPEC)

The Japan Institute ofInternational Affairs (JIIA)

11F Kasumigaseki Building3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, ChiyodakuTokyo 100JapanTel: 81-3-3503 7744Fax: 81-3-3503 6707 http://www.jiia.or.jp/

KOREAKorea National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(KOPEC)

Korea Institute for InternationalEconomic Policy (KIEP)

300-4, Yeorngok-Dong, Seocho-Gu

Seoul 137-800 KoreaTel: 82-2-3460 1151Fax: 82-3-3460 1244

MALAYSIAMalaysia National Committee for

PacificEconomic Cooperation

(MANCPEC)Institute of Strategic and

International Studies (ISIS)


PECC MEMBERS

No. 1 Pesiaran Sultan SalahuddinP.O. Box 12424 50778 Kuala

LumpurMalaysia Tel: 60-3-2693 9366Fax: 60-3-2693 9430

MEXICOMexico National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(MXCPEC)

Paseo de la Reforma No. 175 Piso 11, Col. Cuauhtemoc06500 Mexico, DFTel: 52-55-5241 3440Fax: 52-55-5241 3482

NEW ZEALANDNew Zealand National

Committee for PacificEconomic Cooperation(NZPECC)

c/o Statistics New ZealandPrivate Bag 92003AucklandNew ZealandTel: 64-9-357 2132Fax: 64-9-357 2255

PERUPeruvian National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(PERUPEC)

Ministry of Foreign AffairsJr. Lampa 545, 4th FloorLimaPeru Tel: 51-1-311 2573Fax: 51-1-311 2577

THE PHILIPPINESPhilippine Pacific Economic

Cooperation Committee(PPECC)

c/o Philippine Foundation forGlobal Concerns

43/F, Philamlife Tower 8767 Paseo de RoxasMakati City, PhilippinesTel: 632-885 0924Fax: 632-845 4832

RUSSIARussia National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(RNCPEC)

19 Novy Arbat St., Office 2035103025 MoscowRussiaTel: 7-095-203-53-47Fax: 7-095-203-82-07

SINGAPORESingapore National Committee

for Pacific EconomicCooperation (SINCPEC)

School of Accountancy #07-12469 Bukit Timah Road

Singapore 259756Tel: 65-6822-0160Fax: 65-6822-0400

CHINESE TAIPEIChinese Taipei Pacific Economic

Cooperation Committee(CTPECC)

Taiwan Institute of EconomicResearch (TIER)

5F, 16-8, Tehwei Street TaipeiChinese TaipeiTel: 886-2-2586 5000Fax: 886-2-2594 6528 http://www.tier.org.tw/pecc/ctpecc

/index.htm

THAILANDThailand National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation(TNCPEC)

Department of Economic AffairsMinistry of Foreign AffairsSri Ayudhya RoadBangkok 10400ThailandTel: 662-643-5248 Fax: 662-643-5247

UNITED STATESUnited States National

Committee for PacificEconomic Cooperation(USNCPEC)

1819 L Street, Second FloorWashington, DC 20036USA

Tel: 1-202-293-3995Fax: 1-202-293-1402http://www.pecc.org

VIETNAMVietnam National Committee for

Pacific Economic Cooperation 204 Vo Thi Sau Street, District 3Ho Chi Minh CityViet NamTel: 84 8 932 5886Fax: 84 8 932 5472

SOUTH PACIFIC FORUMForum SecretariatPrivate Mail Bag, Suva FijiTel: 679-312 600, (Direct) 302

375Fax: 679-301 102http://www.forumsec.org.fj/

FRANCE (PACIFIC TERRITORIES)France (Pacific Territories)

National Committee for PacificEconomic Cooperation(Associate Member)

c/o Secrétariat du Comité France(Territoires du Pacifique) pourle PECC

27, rue Oudinot75007 Paris FranceTel: 33-1-53-69-25-29Fax: 33-1-53-69-22-76

MONGOLIAMongolian National Committee

on Pacific EconomicCooperation

(MONCPEC) (AssociateMember)

c/o Ministry of Foreign AffairsUlaanbaatar-49, Peace avenue 12-aMongoliaTel: 976-11-311311 (ext. 257)Fax: 976-11-322127


Economic Research Servicehttp://www.ers.usda.govThe Economic Research Service(ERS) is the main source of eco-nomic information and research inthe US Department ofAgriculture. ERS economists andsocial scientists develop and dis-tribute a broad range of economicand other social science informa-tion and analysis to inform publicand private decision making onagriculture, food, environmental,and rural issues.

The ERS’s timely reports aredistributed to public and privatedecision makers to assist them inconducting business, formulatingpolicy, and learning about thefarm, rural, and food sectors. ERSpublications are available to thepublic and the news media inboth print and electronic form.

The agency ’s three divi-sions—Food and RuralEconomics, Market and TradeEconomics, and ResourceEconomics—conduct research,perform commodity market andpolicy analysis, and develop eco-nomic and statistical indicators.The executive and legislativebranches of the US federal govern-

ment use ERS information to helpdevelop, administer, and evaluatefarm, food, rural, and resourcepolicies and programs.

In addition to research reportsand commodity analyses, ERSpublishes several nationally recog-nized periodicals that communi-cate the findings of the agency’sresearch program: AgriculturalOutlook, Food Review, RuralDevelopment Perspectives, andRural Conditions and Trends.

Farm Foundationhttp://www.farmfoundation.orgFarm Foundation is a nonprofitorganization founded in 1933 toimprove U.S. agriculture and thewell being of rural people. FarmFoundation acts as a catalyst toincrease knowledge about agricul-tural and rural issues. Programactivities stimulate the researchagenda, improve educational pro-gramming through extension andother outreach education, andsponsor forums to foster policydialogue on important issues fac-ing agriculture and rural people.Its linkages to agricultural econo-mists and social scientists bringdisciplinary knowledge to bear onits priority areas: globalization,consumer issues, environmentaland natural resource issues, newtechnologies, the role of agricul-tural institutions, and rural com-munity viability. The Foundation’sprograms promote the interactionof business and policy leaders,government officials, and educa-

tors in exploring strategies andpolicy options. The results providea solid basis for informed privateand public sector decisions.

Fundación Chilehttp://www.fundch.clThe Foundation contributes toinnovation in commodity and fac-tor markets in Chile, throughtechnology transfer that takesaccount of the nation’s compara-tive advantage in natural resources.As a technology leader, it is recog-nized internationally for the cre-ation, promotion and develop-ment of innovative businesses inthe primary sector.

The Foundation uses fourmodalities in its program of tech-nology transfer and diffusion:

■ Participation in the creationof innovative firms;■ Development, adaptation,and sale of technologies to clientsin the private and public sectorsin Chile and overseas;■ Promotion of institutionalinnovations and new mecha-nisms for technology transfer;and■ Diffusion of new technologiesto end users through seminars,specialized journals, and projectconsultation.


SPONSOR PROFILES

The Foundation has demon-strated the viability of its approachthrough sustained contributions tothe economy. Examples of theFoundation’s successes include:

■ Creation of pilot salmon oper-ations, leading to the takeoff ofthis industry in Chile;■ Development of vacuumpackaged meat, leading to themarketing of boxed meat;■ Quality control and certifica-tion systems for fruit exports;■ Introduction of berries inChilean agriculture.

Fundación Chilena del Pacífico http://www.funpacifico.clThe Chile Pacific Foundation wasfounded in 1994 as a private non-profit organization by a group ofacademic, business, and govern-ment representatives. Initially, atthe request of the Ministry ofForeign Relations, the Foundationtook over the responsibility ofcoordinating the activities of theChilean Committee for EconomicCooperation in the Pacific(CHILPEC), the Chilean counter-part of PECC (Pacific EconomicCooperation Council), an impor-tant network of academic, busi-ness, and government leaders.Chile joined PECC in 1991 inorder to participate in regionaleconomic forums and to preparefor its application to join APEC.

Currently, the Foundation isgoverned by a Board of Directors,composed of 25 academics, busi-ness, and government leaders withinterests in the Pacific Basin.Internationally, the mission of theFoundation is to provide supportfor Chile’s economic, cultural, andsocial integration into the PacificBasin. Toward that end, it pro-motes better understanding aboutChile and its economic develop-ment policies by participating in anetwork of regional and multilater-al organizations and forums.Nationally, the Foundation’s mis-sion is to disseminate informationabout Pacific Basin countries andtheir economic, social, and culturalsystems by means of conferencesand publications.


The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) is an independent, policy-oriented organizationdevoted to promoting economic cooperation in the Pacific Rim. PECC brings together senior gov-ernment, academic, and business representatives from 22 economies to share perspectives and expert-ise in search of broad-based answers to economic problems in the Asia Pacific region.

Founded in 1980, PECC now comprises member committees from the economies of Australia; Brunei;Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Ecuador; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Malaysia; Mexico;New Zealand; Peru; the Philippines; Russia; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; the United States; and VietNam as well as the Pacific Island Nations. France (Pacific Territories) and Mongolia were admitted as associatemembers in April 1997 and April 2000, respectively. The Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC) and PacificTrade and Development Conference (PAFTAD) are institutional members of PECC.

PECC’s governing body is the Standing Committee, which meets several times a year and consists of thechairs of PECC committees in each member economy. The day-to-day administrative and coordinating func-tions are carried out by an International Secretariat based in Singapore. Each member committee sends a high-level tripartite delegation from government, business, and academia to the PECC General Meeting heldapproximately every two years.

In addition, PECC establishes task forces, forums, and working groups to concentrate on particular policyareas. These groups meet periodically, organize seminars and workshops, conduct studies, and publish theirconclusions and recommendations for the benefit of the Pacific community. Task force topics include capitaland financial markets, fisheries development and cooperation, human resource development, Pacific IslandNations, and science and technology. PECC also supports regional forums on trade policy, food and agricul-ture, minerals, energy, telecommunications, and transportation and publishes annual editions of PacificEconomic Outlook and Pacific Food System Outlook.

At the regional level, PECC’s most important link with government is through APEC. PECC is the onlynongovernmental organization among the three official APEC observers. PECC representatives attend APECministerial meetings, senior officials meetings, and working group meetings. PECC also works with otherinternational organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and United Nations’ agencies.

For more information, contact the PECC International Secretariat, 4 Nassim Road, Singapore 258372, Tel:65-6737 9823, Fax: 65-6737 9824, email: [email protected]


PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION COUNCIL

The Pacific Food System Outlook represents the first regionwide coordinated effort toprovide the outlook for the Pacific food system. The food system includes not just pro-duction agriculture, but also the whole complex of economic relationships and link-ages that tie the region’s food consumers to producers. The goal of the Pacific FoodSystem Outlook is to help increase knowledge about the diverse components of thisvital segment of the global economy.

Date post:	06-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

MAKING THE REGION’S FOOD SUPPLIES SAFER · 2018. 10. 9. · PERU Luis Jimenez Dean of Faculty of...

Documents