1

Executive SummaryIntroduction

About the SpeakersKazuho Nagata, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of Japan

Amanda Hill - Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)Ms Hill is the Manager of Food Safety and Response at Food Standards Australia New Zealand and responsible for development of primary production and processing standards, food safety standards and recall and incident management. Ms Hill is the Chair of the Australian Government National Food Incident Response Group and Australian Delegation Leader to the Committee for Food Hygiene. Ms Hill’s background is in immunology, microbiology and molecular biology and involvement in science management in joint ventures between research, commercial and service delivery organizations.

Peter K. Ben Embarek – INFOSAN Secretariat, WHOPeter K. Ben Embarek is currently working with the World Health Organization (WHO) at its Headquarters in managing the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN). Previously from WHO’s China Office, he was providing policy and technical advice to the government of China on food safety and nutrition issues. He joined WHO at its HQ in Geneva, Switzerland in 2001 where he worked in lending support to Member States on how to develop and strengthen integrated and multisectoral national food safety strategies and policies. He was also responsible for the microbiological aspects of food safety matters in the work of the Organization including the development of microbiological risk assessment work at the international level. He is covering food safety issues as part of the WHO assessment and response efforts to new emerging public health issues such as MERS-CoV, Avian Influenza and SARS. From 2014 to 2017, he was managing the WHO MERS-CoV virus Task Force. Dr. Ben Embarek served with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) beginning in 1995 where he coordinated research and development activities and provided technical advice on safety and quality aspects of fishery products at the regional office for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkok, Thailand. In 1997, he joined the Fisheries Department of FAO HQ in Rome, Italy where he covered food safety aspects of the work of the Department. Dr. Ben Embarek received his MSc. Degree in Food Science and Technology and a Ph.D. in Food Safety from the Royal Agricultural and Veterinary University of

2

Copenhagen, Denmark. He is a Fellow of the International Academy of Food Science and Technology (IAFoST) under the International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST) and the 2017 recipient of the Scientific Spirit Award of the Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology (CIFST).

Carmen Joseph Savelli, INFOSAN Secretariat, World Health Organization.

Dr. Stic Harris - Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation Network - U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Stic Harris, DVM, MPH, joined the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in August 2017 as the new Director of the Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) Network. In this role, Dr. Harris oversees FDA’s full-time staff dedicated to preventing, detecting, and investigating outbreaks related to human food, cosmetics, and dietary supplements. Distinguishing himself as a leader in the world of outbreak response, Dr. Harris brings with him an invaluable mix of clinical and policy experience. Formerly with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch (AFHSB), the central epidemiologic resource for the U.S. military, he was part of the Alert and Response Operations Team in the Integrated Biosurveillance division, where the work is focused on monitoring infectious diseases. Dr. Harris’ team was responsible for identifying, verifying, and delivering the latest information and assessments of outbreaks affecting the Department of Defense. Prior to his four years at AFHSB, Dr. Harris was a veterinary medical officer at the Department of Homeland Security. He was based in the Office of Health Affairs, where he was the liaison to One Health, the global initiative to unite human and veterinary medicine. From 2009-2010, he was a AAAS/AVMA (American Association for the Advancement of Science/American Veterinary Medical Association) Congressional Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the office of Minnesota Senator Al Franken, working on health care, food safety, infectious disease, agriculture, and biodefense. Additionally, Dr. Harris served as Senator Al Franken’s lead on the Food Safety Modernization Act during the congressional review and committee hearings. Dr. Harris also spent several years working as an epidemiologist in both the Texas and Georgia state health departments on such varied topics as lead poisoning prevention, prion diseases, arthritis, bioterrorism, maternal and child health, and cancer. Dr. Harris has a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine from the University of Georgia and a Master’s in Public Health in molecular epidemiology and public health genetics from the University of Michigan.

3

WorkshopSession 1: “Regulatory Updates”The objective of this session was to analyze the legislation in place and protocols that APEC economies and international organizations have for the response to emergencies due to a food safety incident.

Participants included APEC members from Japan, United States and Australia. It also featured the presentation from delegates from INFOSAN/WHO.

Presentation N° 1 “The System of Food Safety Emergency/Crisis Managementin Japan” – Ms. Kazuho Nagata, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of Japan. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) Basic Principle for Food Safety Emergency Response, the definition of a food safety emergency/crisis in Japan is a situation where there is /may be significant foodborne risk to public health that requires urgent action to ensure the food safety and the difference between emergency and crisis lies in the severity, so what and how we should respond in these situations is different.

Three main activities for the preparedness toward of food safety emergency are necessary; first, to ensure a coordinated approach, we establish a multi-agency coordination group. And we identify contact points for prompt communication and decision making. Second, we establish principles and guidelines. And then, we develop emergency response plan based on this principles and guidelines. Lastly, we evaluate the system and emergency response plan though table top exercises and once we identify the problems, we take appropriate measures toward solving them.(e.g. revising guidelines and manuals). With this process, the overall response system for food safety emergency/crisis is going to be improved as is show in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Activities for the preparedness toward a food safety emergency in Japan

4

The Multi Agency coordination group in Japan is structured as is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Structure of the Multi Agency Coordination Group in Japan.

Regarding the establishment of principles and guidelines, MAFF create guidelines and manuals and this are reviewed and revised as necessary, for example after a training or after a response to a real emergency/crisis.

The MAFF Basic Guideline for Food Safety Emergency Response, is a Guideline for food safety emergency response which contain every important agricultural commodity and its major hazards.

5

In addition, Regional offices have developed their own guidelines and manuals under this basic Guideline.

For the Table top training, the Multi Agency Coordination group conducts simulation exercises once a year to; (i) Review the manuals, (ii) Enhance communication among involved agencies, (iii) Train for a press briefing in case of Food safety emergency/crisis.

An incident will be manage in Japan through its Multi Agency Coordination Group which main objective is to prevent the spread of contaminated food, disseminating information to stakeholders, remove unsafe foods from the market and identify the cause immediately. After identifying the root cause, the implementation for prevention of recurrence will start. Each one of the coordinating members role is identified. Regarding disseminating information, each agency will inform to their own stakeholders immediately. For example;

Ministry of Health Life and Welfare (MHLW) and local governments will inform the incident to the food industry and restaurants.

Consumers Affairs Agency will disseminates to consumer. Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries will provide information to food industry,

producers of fertilizer, feed, veterinary drug and pesticide depending on a cause of incident.

When it comes to food recall, the Ministry of Health Life and Welfare or local Governments order the recall of implicated foods and the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries cooperates for an efficient recall.

To have a better understanding the food safety role along the food chain of each one of the Ministries and Agencies, an explanation is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Role of Japan´s MAFF and MHLW in the food chain.

6

Finally communication is very important, since once an emergency/crisis happens, accurate information is very important. Accurate information should be reached to the consumers as quickly as possible to prevent panic and expansion of health damage. Figure 4 shows how MAFF communicate with consumers and food industry in case of a Food Safety Emergency.

Figure 4. MAFF Communication with Consumers and Food Industry in case of a Food Safety Emergency.

7

Presentation N° 2 “Australia’s Food Safety Response System – Legislation and Processes” – Ms. Amanda Hill, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).

Australia’s health and food regulation system is composed of more than 500 local government authorities across 6 states and 2 territories.

For an efficient Food Safety Emergency Response, both, Food and Health Regulatory Framework must be clear. Figure 5 shows how Food Regulatory Framework is developed and Figure 6 shows how Australia respond to a Food safety Emergency.

Figure 5. Food Regulatory Framework in Australia

Figure 6. System for responding to a Food Safety Emergency in Australia

8

The Food Safety Network partners are, the Department of Health which develops policies, coordinates foodborne illness surveillance and the Public Health communication, FSANZ, which develops national standards and guidance and is responsible of the National coordination of food recalls and food safety incidents; The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is responsible of the regulatory compliance and enforcements in terms of imported and exported foods and finally the States and Territories are the ones responsible for the implementation, enforcement and compliance of the food regulation, make the foodborne illnesses surveillance and the outbreak investigation.

In case of a foodborne disease outbreak investigation, the Epidemiological evidence is one aspect of the total evidence, but also Laboratory evidence, which is responsibility of the Public Health Laboratory Network and do the testing of clinical specimens from ill individuals to assist in defining the outbreak case definitions and ruling cases in or out. Other aspect to be consider is the Environmental evidence which is responsibility of the food enforcement agencies (Bi-National Food Safety Network). Their work is in line with the Guidelines for the environmental investigation to deliver consistent and coordinated environmental investigations. They are in charge of the collection of information from businesses, sampling and testing, trace back procedures, transfer of information between jurisdictions, transfer of information between jurisdictions and industry, documentation and reporting.

Some definitions need to be set in terms of responding to a food safety incident;

9

• Food incident means any situation within the food supply chain where there is a risk or potential risk of illness or confirmed illness or injury associated with the consumption of a food or foods. The food incident may or may not have attracted media or political interest.

• National food incident means a food incident that could, or is expected to, impact on multiple government jurisdictions and response action is required at the national level. An ‘impact’ can include media or political interest in a particular food incident regardless of whether the jurisdiction is directly affected.

• Bi-national food incident means a food incident that could, or is expected to, impact on both New Zealand and Australian jurisdictions and response action is required by Australian jurisdiction/s and New Zealand. An ‘impact’ can include media or political interest in a particular food incident regardless of whether New Zealand or Australian jurisdictions are directly affected. The impact may be different for each country.

In the case of Bi National food safety incident, a network was created and use Standard Operative Procedures (SOPs) to act. This procedures tell when to use the Network, what information should be provided, organizing teleconferences, which is the range of Network actions, give references to useful investigation guidelines, Triggers for activating the National Food Incident Response Protocol, activate the Bi-national coordination and review and maintenance of the network.

The National Food Safety Incident Response Protocol (NFIRP) is a guide for the coordination of Australian government agencies responsible for food safety and food issues in the event of a national food incident and include the coordination of 5 key roles; the National Food Incident Coordinator, Communications Controller, Risk Assessment Coordinator, Agency Controller and the Incident Secretariat. The management and response will involve Notifying Agency, Agency Food Incident Controller, Affected Agencies and other participating Agencies. In complement, FSANZ provides the Secure National Response Forum, an online secure (member only, password protected) extranet site which provides a document management system (and “single source of truth”) on all food incidents, procedures and learning tools.

10

Figure 7. Communication in a National Food Safety Incident Response

When a Bi-National Food Safety incident occur, the coordination and management is made as it shows in the Figure 8.

11

Figure 8. Bi- National coordination for Food Safety Emergencies

As a summary of recommendations made by the speaker based on their lesson learned in the process were:

• System need to be in place

• Networks need to be in place

• Coordination function properly resourced

• System and roles need to be known and exercised

• Protocols need to be regularly reviewed (debrief after each use)

Presentation N°3 “U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)” – Dr. Stic Harris, Director, Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation Network - U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

12

The Food Safety modernization Act (FSMA) mandate is broad and challenging. FSMA instructed FDA to overhaul its food safety program, with major new directions in four main themes (Figure 9):1. Prevention: Shifting from an old, antiquated system of chasing after problems once they occur to a new focus on prevention. Move food system from reaction to prevention. For the first time FDA has a legislative mandate to require comprehensive, prevention-based controls across the food supply. Risk-based: Improving resource management to improve food safety through risk-based priority setting and resource allocation.2. Inspection Compliance & Response: The law specifies how often FDA should inspect food producers. For the first time FDA will have mandatory recall authority for all food products. Increased, targeted inspections: Increasing the frequency of inspections and enhancing the targeting of inspections based on food safety risk and performance through modernized data collection and information systems.Key Principles:

– Focus on gaining industry compliance and reducing the risk of foodborne illness– Not a “One Size Fits All” approach

o Recognition that not all situations are equal relative to risk and potential for public health impact

– Interactive, cooperative inspectionso Encourage industry to comply and make corrections on its own

3. Imported Food Safety: FSMA’s most ground-breaking shift FDA has new tools to ensure that imported foods meet US standards and are safe for our consumers. Modernized and expanded import oversight: Implementing an entirely new import oversight program that relies on importers taking greater responsibility for the foods they bring into the U.S., enhances FDA’s risk-based import screening program, expands foreign inspections and collaboration with foreign governments, and facilitates trade in safe food.

• U.S. importers now responsible for ensuring that their foreign suppliers meet U.S. safety standards

• Can require mandatory certification for in certain limited circumstances• Voluntary qualified importer program (VQIP)

o expedited review• Can deny entry if FDA access for inspection is denied• Requires food from abroad to be as safe as domestic

4. Enhanced Partnerships: The legislation recognizes the importance of strengthening existing collaboration among all food safety agencies, to achieve our public health goals.

• Critical role of partnerships– Other federal agencies– Integrated food safety system– Foreign partnerships

Figure 9. Food Safety Modernization Act main themes

13

The result is seven foundational final Rules;1. Preventive Controls for Human Food: Sets safety requirements for facilities that process, package or store human food. 2. Preventive Controls for Animal Food: Aims to protect animal food and feed from contaminants. 3. Produce Safety: Sets science-based standards for growing, harvesting, packing and holding produce on domestic and foreign farms. 4. Foreign Supplier Verification Program: Makes importers responsible for ensuring that foreign food suppliers provide the same level of public health protection as is required of U.S. food producers. 5. Third Party Certification: Establishes a program for the accreditation of third-party auditors to conduct food safety audits and issue certifications of foreign facilities and the foods they produce. 6. Sanitary Transportation: Would require the use of sanitary transportation practices to ensure food safety. 7. Intentional Adulteration: Would require facilities to implement a food defense plan to prevent actions intended to cause large-scale public harm. It is important to note FSMA Section 305: “Building Capacity of Foreign Governments with Respect to Food Safety” directs FDA to develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.The Capacity Building Plan (Element 4) aims to train foreign governments and food producers on US requirements for safe food. Key actions of the Plan include: coordination with other U.S. agencies; development of training materials through partnerships; prioritization of training and capacity building efforts through risk assessment and needs assessments; and provision of support to FDA’s foreign offices on technical assistance. Furthermore, an International Communications &

14

Engagement Plan developed by FDA supports high rates of compliance with new FSMA rules and by addressing a continuum of information needs of international stakeholders. The FDA is working to prepare partners and key stakeholders, conduct outreach on the final rules, provide training and education, and to promote sustainability of adoption of a preventive food safety focus with a key Implementation Principle: Facilitate industry compliance with prevention-oriented standards through guidance, developing tools/resources for education, outreach and technical assistance. This will be facilitated by Guidance Documents on Vulnerability assessments, Mitigation strategies, Food defense monitoring, corrective actions, and verification, Recordkeeping, A Small Entity Compliance Guide to assist small and very small businesses to comply with the rule.

Regarding International Communication and Engagement FDA has established and maintains partnerships with many international organizations. These partnerships enable the agency to leverage the greater bodies of work being undertaken by these entities, thus enabling FDA to maximize influence while minimizing the taxation of their resources. Examples of these partnerships include the work with: STDF, FAO, APEC, GFSP, WHO, etc.

The FDA is also conducting FSMA Outreach through meetings and webinars. Cadres of FDA experts will be making a series of visits to various partner countries and regions, to meet with government, industry, and academic stakeholders to discuss FSMA and its impact. Additionally, as resources are limited, FDA has and will continue to hold conference calls and webinars to share FSMA presentations with the international community. Many of these presentations, webinars, and recordings are available on the FSMA website.

FDA is also engaging in Risk-Based Food Safety Capacity Building Initiatives, such as the Food and Agriculture Sustainability Training (FAST). They are collaborating with the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service, the U.S. Agency for International Development, Texas Tech University, and Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) to implement FSMA-readiness outreach and capacity building in many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Success with FAST encouraged involvement in another tri-agency effort: the Food Safety Network, which supports activities geared toward building global SPS capacity.

Another important for both domestic and foreign industry is FDA’s work through the Alliances: the Food Safety Preventive Controls, the Produce Safety, and the Sprout Safety Alliances where each one has an important role;

• Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA)• Curricula to train those that manufacture, process, hold, and distribute human and

animal food.• Curriculum to train importers subject to the FSVP rule

• Produce Safety Alliance (PSA)• Curriculum to train the farming community

• Sprout Safety Alliance (SSA)• Curriculum to train sprout growers

15

Presentation N° 4 “How INFOSAN Links with Other Legal Frameworks of Response”- Dr. Peter Ben Embarek, INFOSAN Secretariat, World Health Organization.

The International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN), is a voluntary network of National authorities involved in food safety from around the world, with more than 500 participants from 188 Member States and managed jointly by FAO and WHO.

INFOSAN aims to:

Promote the rapid exchange of information during food safety related events Share information on important food safety related issues of global interest Promote partnerships and collaboration between countries, and between networks Help countries strengthen their capacity to manage food safety emergencies

Figure 10. INFOSAN Structure

16

Much of the work of INFOSAN is carried out in the context of Global Health Security, in order to strengthen national infrastructures for food safety and related country obligations under the International Health Regulations (2005). Under the International Health Regulations (IHR) all States Parties are required to have minimum core public health capacities to implement the IHR effectively. The core capacities for food safety are included in this list, and participation in INFOSAN is specifically mentioned, by designating active INFOSAN Emergency Contact Points and Focal Points, Member States are contributing to the fulfilment of their country’s requirements under the IHR.

Under the IHR (2005) States Parties are required to assess public health events utilizing this decision instrument (Figure 11) and notify WHO of all qualifying events within 24 hours of such an assessment.

Figure 11. Decision Instrument for the Assessment and Notification of events that may constitute Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

17

Regarding INFOSAN and the joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Alimentarius Commission Guidelines, in 2016 has updated the document titled, “Principles and Guidelines for the Exchange of Information in Food Safety Emergency Situations (CAC/GL 19-1995)”, by making appropriate references to INFOSAN. Further solidifying the important and internationally

18

recognized role that INFOSAN should play in the rapid exchange of information between countries during a food safety emergency.

As conclusion for this talk, Mr. Embarek highlighted that even when there are many regional food safety communication networks, INFOSAN is a global network, but a better leveraging of existing network should be done since they have common goals, resources can be shared and we will accomplish safer food around the world.

Effective food safety risk communication can improve:

people’s physical well-being;

consumers’ trust in the food supply and in the regulatory systems;

the environment in which we live (animal, environment and plant health); and

people’s overall quality of life, including socio-economic factors such as livelihoods and psychological factors

Underpinned by the ethical need to ensure that society is protected from food safety risks to the greatest extent possible.

The goals of Food Safety Risk Communication are:

To protect people’s health through provision of information that enables them to make informed food safety decisions.

To facilitate understanding and dialogue among all stakeholders, including consumers, about food safety issues.

To improve the ongoing risk analysis process through societal engagement.

Presentation N°5 “Communicating food safety risks through national food safety alert systems: INFOSAN Perspective” – Mr. Carmen Joseph Savelli, INFOSAN Secretariat, World Health Organization.Risk communication is essential component of risk analysis. In food safety, risk communication is utilized to support the exchange of information and opinions on food safety risks and related factors among relevant stakeholders (e.g. governments, consumers, industry, NGOs, academia, media, etc.).

Risk communication can enable people to make informed decisions, facilitate mutual understanding among stakeholders and frequently inform and enhance risk assessment and risk management.

During an emergency food safety incident, messages are often direct, and are delivered frequently and urgently. For example, data may indicate the presence of an outbreak of food-borne illness, or

19

testing of food products may suggest potentially health-threatening microbiological or physical contamination of foods. So you may have to consider that an emergency food safety risk requires a rapid response, and there may not be enough time to consult fully with all relevant target audiences and stakeholders to inform development of the message. There may be incomplete information about the extent and impact of the risk or who is affected; this will need to be addressed in the communication having in consideration four principles; openness, transparency, responsiveness, timeliness.

Other aspect to consider during a food safety emergency, coordination of communication among various stakeholders becomes increasingly important in order to avoid contradictory messages and public confusion, since early information is likely to be uncertain and may turn out wrong; risk communicators should present the facts as they are known while acknowledging the uncertainty of a given situation and the notion that the situation will evolve as new evidence emerges.

A national food safety alert system can assist in risk communication and should be documented in a Food Safety Emergency Response Plan. It is critical to know who needs to be contacted and when, in order to support effective alert communication. Alerts are often predefined and may be prescriptive, triggering actions that need to be taken by targeted stakeholders and the national food safety alert system is often responsible for initiating follow-up communications and procedures with relevant stakeholders. Alerts produced by a national food safety alert network need to be crafted and disseminated with precision, they will ideally be tailored to target audiences, easy to understand, provide sufficient context, outline logical next steps, and follow risk communication principles.

Responsiveness is the extent to which those responsible for food safety address the target audiences’ risk communication needs and expectations in their communication activities.

Risk communicators should also be responsive to changes in the external environment, including unplanned and unforeseen events (e.g. misinformation, emerging questions and concerns, misconceptions), and revise or reinforce messages accordingly.

Timeliness of communication, even in the presence of uncertainty or knowledge gaps about the risk, is instrumental in protecting public health and building and maintaining stakeholder trust.

Membership in a national food safety alert system should include all stakeholders involved in the process of identifying signals, verifying and assessing those signals, and communicating and receiving alerts to take necessary follow-up actions.

A list of potential stakeholders that may be involved in a national food safety alert system's network for food safety includes:

Those who identify signals through surveillance and monitoring systems, such as laboratories contributing data on food hazards and human cases

20

Those who verify and assess threats and adverse events related to identified signals (e.g. outbreak investigators, environmental health inspectors, and risk assessors)

Risk communicators

Risk managers and decision-makers

Food control regulators and inspectors

Food industry partners (e.g. farmers, processors, distributors, retailers, caterers)

Specific businesses involved in a food safety incident or event

Academics, researchers, and educators

Media outlets

Consumers

When drafting and communicating food safety alerts, some aspect should be consider such as;

Means of disseminating information can include dedicated websites, printed materials, public notices in national and local press, etc.

Important to ensure the information provided is accessible to general population

May be necessary to translate the message into other languages and provide coverage via television and radio.

Necessary to ensure that those in rural areas without access to mass media also receive the information through other means.

Communications to the public should be simple to understand, open and factual about the risk and the products affected, and should provide advice to the public.

Information should be provided on what has been and what is being done to contain the problem.

Advice should also be given to consumers on what to do if they have obtained affected products and what to do if they have consumed affected products.

Central Challenges to Effective Food Safety Risk Communication are;

Identifying all target audiences and understanding their risk perceptions, concerns and communication needs.

Building and maintaining trust in sources of food safety risk information, and in those institutions with responsibility for assessing and managing food safety risks.

21

Communicating uncertainties, where they exist, and what is being done to reduce and mitigate them.

Ensuring that risk communication is adapted to changes in the external environment so that it always reflects the current state of risk.

Identifying where knowledge gaps/differences exist between scientific experts and target audiences.

Identifying the barriers to communicating effectively with each target audience group (e.g. social exclusion of vulnerable groups, socio-economic or cultural factors, local or regional infrastructure, or unintended consequences of food safety risk communication).

Coordinating risk communication messages among multiple individuals or institutions who are conveying information about the same food safety issue.

Communicating clearly and in a timely fashion.

Minimizing unintended consequences of the communication.

As a Final conclusion of this lecture, Mr. Savelli remarks the following;

Lack of trust can be a key limitation to the success of some national food safety alert systems (e.g. there is risk to income and reputation for private sector companies, food sectors, or nations named in an alert)

Timely, open, transparent, and responsive communication of alerts can actually prevent negative economic consequences and improve stakeholder credibility

Ongoing dialogue about the need for notification, incentives for notification, and the impacts of alerts can improve trust between food safety alert system stakeholders

An essential component of any plan is a list of the contact details of all key partners and stakeholders, including the media; this list needs to be readily available and updated regularly

Utilize existing tools like the INFOSAN Community Website.

Communications strategy may include the use of model press releases, templates for notification of incidents, recall/withdrawal notices, prepared questions and answers, and fact sheets on familiar topics

For templates and examples, check out the FAO/WHO guide for developing and improving national food recall systems

22

For more information on risk communication applied to food safety, see the FAO/WHO Handbook

INFOSAN should be considered a key information resource for support during emergencies

Presentation N° 6 “Communication to the Public” - Ms. Kazuho Nagata, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of Japan.

The objective of a communication strategy during a food safety emergency, according to the “FAO/WHO Framework for Developing National Food Safety Emergency Response Plans “is to:

Provide accurate, timely information on the hazard

Ensure a common understanding of the problem

And Things that need to be considered are:

Establishing the rationale for the selection of control measures

Communication with industry during risk analysis process

Risk communication to the general public

Communication with relevant international/regional bodies

Regarding the communication to the public, the initial communication at the onset of an emergency is critical and the messages should be timely, consistent and accurate. Options for the dissemination of the information are for example; 1.Face-to-face meeting (e.g. gatherings and lectures, etc.), Mass media (e.g. television and radio programs, etc.), Internet, including SNS (e.g. Web sites, Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Some difficulties in the communication could be, balance between accuracy and timeliness, finding effective and efficient ways of conveying messages (including a range of vehicles to reach all target audiences) and the presence of fake information can cause consumers fear.

Preparedness should be done in regular time before the emergency, having in mind the following aspect;

1. To disseminate accurate and easy-to-understand message immediately after the incident and to avoid inconsistent government message, two actions need to be considered;

1. Improve quantity of contents

2. Reinforce inter-agency communication

The improvement in quantity of content can be done through the following:

23

Risk profile (full and abridged versions)

Info kit on food safety (e.g. video, brochure, webpage etc.)

Transmit information to the public regularly by: o Face-to-face meetingo Television programso Web sites o Twitter and Facebook

The reinforcement of inter-agency communication can be done by disseminate information in a harmonious manner, maintain a good relationship among Multi-agency group and facilitate communication using; Preparation of guidelines, Conducting tabletop trainings and have Frequent exchange of information

Conclusions:

Provide accurate, timely information on the hazard to ensure a common understanding of the problem.

Establish the rationale for the selection of control measures.

Session 2: “Dealing with Food Safety Emergency”The objective of this session was to share the experiences of the APEC economies in the development and implementation of response mechanisms to food safety emergencies (National Food Safety Incident Response Plans – NFSERP).

Session 3: “Proposing a way forward: APEC economies collaboration”The objective of this session was to define a collaborate strategy with specific objectives and products to improve food safety emergency management for APEC economies, based on the eWG results and the inputs from Session 1 and 2.

The workgroup session used the aspects identified through a survey that was sent to each of the APEC economies prior to the workshop to identify the gaps of each one with respect to the key elements for the development of a national food safety emergency response plan based on the FAO/WHO framework for developing national food safety emergency response plans key elements1.

This document will detail the recommendations of the delegates after the analysis and discussion of the difficulties that APEC economies face to make the food safety emergency system work properly.

24

Five main difficulties were identified and in order of relevance are;

1. No appropriate funding for the platform/software.2. Need support from successful experiences from other economies.3. Lack of a clear framework for public agencies to share information4. Difficulties implementing work-plan.5. Poor inter institutional coordination.

For these five difficulties, recommendations, activities and aspects to consider were proposed.

No appropriate funding for the platform/softwareOne main aspect to consider is the sustainability of funding and resources. Recommendations made for addressing this difficulty include: accomplish high level authority commitment and full support; establish a regulatory basis; and maintain constant and intense lobbying to show food safety importance in both, public health and food trade to the high authorities.

The proposed activities to solve it are to explore with ASEAN members the use of their platform and explore for open - source resources.

Need support from successful experiences from other economiesThe main aspect to consider is the prior identification of successful experience and the harmonization of the food safety regulation between economies. To accomplish this support the recommendations made by the participants are to generate an MoU or letter of understanding between APEC economies for strengthening the food safety emergency preparedness and management through on-site expert training internships or experience-sharing webinars and laboratory capacities improvement.

Lack of a clear framework for public agencies to share informationThe participants’ opinion was that it is not the unwillingness to share the information, but the lack of a clear framework on coordination for sharing information in case of a food safety emergency between the public agencies at national level among the APEC economies is the real difficulty. A key aspect to consider is the confidentiality of the data and the use of this information by the different agencies involved.

The recommendations made by the participants are focused on creating an oversight National Coordination Committee who will manage a Database for sharing information and it works through documented procedures of mechanism for sharing information at national level and the criteria for connecting or sharing information at international level.

Difficulties implementing work-plans All the participant APEC economies declare to have a wok plan for food safety emergency response, but the difficulty is the implementation of this work plan in most of these economies. The recommendations given by the delegates are to have a legislation to support the implementation of this work plan with governance at the central level and local administrations

25

and have a documented procedure to allow the synchronization of the implementation of the work plan at central and local level.

Poor inter institutional coordinationIn all participants’ APEC economies, their National Food Safety System is managed by more than 2 agencies and even more than one Ministry, so the interinstitutional coordination is one of the fundamental difficulties that is hard to solve during the implementation of the Food safety emergency response plan or the management of a Food safety outbreak/crisis.

The participants’ proposal is to use the experience from other APEC economies and share it through an international platform such as INFOSAN where an APEC group forum could be created for this purpose and have written procedures in place. Also, a follow up project focused on simulation scenarios for the strengthening and validation of the coordination procedures in each of the APEC economies should be considered.

Workshop Final Conclusions FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES1. Sharing successful experiences will help us enhance:

• Interinstitutional Coordination

• Information sharing within and between agencies.

• Establishment of the criteria for sharing information at international level in food safety incidents

2. Electronical Working Group of APEC Economies in INFOSAN discussion forum for:

• For discussing good and bad experiences from the economies in interinstitutional coordination and information sharing.

• Build a framework document on interinstitutional coordination and information sharing based on successful experiences of APEC economies.

• Identify webinars subjects needed.

3. Chile as project overseer:

• Contact FSCF secretariat to update information on this workshop.

• Invite the economies and chair the Electronical working Group (eWG)

• Follow up and help through the eWG the post-workshop debriefing activities of the economies.

Elaborate a workshop conclusion that will be circulated among participants’ economies.

26

Electronical Working Group and Survey AnalysisAPPENDIX 1 – Workshop Agenda

Time Duration Panel # Presentation Speaker8:30 60 min Workshop Registration

9:25 5 min Domestic instructions and security briefing

ACHIPIA

9:30 30 min Official inauguration of the workshop

- Mr. Claudio TernicierUnder Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture- Dr. Michel Leporati, Executive Secretary, Chilean Food Safety and Food Quality Agency, ACHIPIA

10:00 30 min Coffee Break

10:30 30 minPanel 1 Current legislation in response to food safety emergency

The System of Food Safety Emergency/Crisis Management in Japan

Ms. Kazuho Nagata, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan

11:00 30 minAustralia’s food safety response system – legislation and processes

Ms. Amanda Hill, Manager of Food Safety and Response, FSANZ

11:30 30 min U.S FDA Legislative Updates Dr. Stic Harris, Director of the Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) Network, US FDA

12:00 15 min Q&A to panel members Moderator Achipia12:15 80 min Lunch

14:00 30 minPanel 1 (continuation)Current legislation in response to food safety emergency

How INFOSAN link with other legal frameworks of response

Mr. Peter K. Ben Embarek , International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) Management, Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses, WHO.

14:30 20 min Q&A to panel members Moderator Achipia

14:50 Coffee Break

15:20 30 minPanel 2Communication in Food Safety Emergency Situation

Risk Communication to the public in Food Safety emergencies in Japan

Ms. Kazuho Nagata, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan

15:50 30 min Risk Communication, INFOSAN Perspective

Mr. Carmen Savelli, Technical Officer, Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses, WHO.

16.20 20 min Q&A to panel members Moderator: ACHIPIA

17:00 60 min Workshop Reception

Day 1: Session 1

Day 2: Session 2Time Duration Panel # Presentation Name Speaker9:00 5 min

Panel 3: How do we start and manage a NFSERP?

Sharing our experience on an actual event.

Day 2 explanation ACHIPIA

9:05 30 min Building the Australian food response system 2007-2017

Ms. Amanda Hill, Manager of Food Safety and Response, FSANZ

9:35 30 min U.S. FDA’s Coordinated Response to Recent Foodborne Outbreaks

Dr. Stic Harris, Director of the Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) Network, US FDA

10:05 30 min Food Safety Incident Information Network in Chile (RIAL) Mr. Eduardo Aylwin, ACHIPIA - Chile

10.35 25 min Coffee Break

27

11:00 30 minPanel 3: continuation

How do we start and manage a NFSERP? Sharing our experience on an actual

event

FAO /WHO Guidance Document on Developing National Food Safety

Emergency Response Plan

Mr. Peter K. Ben Embarek , International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) Management, Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses, WHO.

11.30 20 min eWG Questionnaire: Results and Analysis Mr. Juan Ortuzar, ACHIPIA - Chile

11:50 10 min Q&A to panel members Moderator: ACHIPIA

12:00 90 min Lunch

13:30 20 min

Panel 4: Experience sharingHow do we manage a Food Safety

Incident?

Indonesia Management of Food Safety Emergency Situations

Ms. Mauizzati Purba, Director Food Safety Surveillance and Extension, National Agency for Drug and Food Control (NADFC)

13:50 20 min Management for Food Safety Emergency in Viet Nam

Dr. Tran Quoc Tuan, Director Department for Goods Product Quality Management

14:10 20 min National Coordination in a Food Safety Emergency

Mr. Hugo Schenone, Technical Officer,Ministry of Health - Chile

14:30 20 min The Philippines Food Safety Regulatory System

Dr. Sobrevega, Regional Technical Director for Research and Regulation, Dept of Agriculture.Ms. Palafox, Officer at Food and Drug Administration

14:50 20 min Food Safety Incident Management Dr. Sayan Ruadrew, Thai Food and Drug Administration.

15:10 30 minManaging multinational food safety emergency events from an INFOSAN

perspective

Mr. Carmen Savelli, Technical Officer, Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses, WHO.

15:40 20 min Q&A to panel members Moderator: Ms. Constanza Vergara, ACHIPIA16:00 30 min Coffee Break

16:30 20 minWork Session

Groups formation (3 groups) and Explanation of Work Session

Moderator: ACHIPIA

16:50 45 min Work Session I Moderator: Ms. Constanza Vergara, ACHIPIA17:35 Closure

28

Day 3: Session 3

Time Duration Panel # Presentation Name Facilitators/Moderators

9:00 15 min Official workshop photo APEC delegates and Speakers

9:15 10 min Work session II Explanation Ms. Constanza Vergara, ACHIPIA

9:25 80 min Work session II

10:45 20 min Coffee Break

11:05 45 min Group Conclusion Presentations (15 minutes each)

11:50 30 min Round table of discussion/ Conclusions Ms. Constanza Vergara, ACHIPIA

12:20 20 min Recess

12:40 15 min“Proposing a way forward”: draft document proposal

Ms. Constanza Vergara, ACHIPIA

12:55 25 min Revision and comments to the document Moderator: ACHIPIA

13:20 10 min Workshop closure Ms. Constanza Vergara, ACHIPIA

APPENDIX 2 – List of Participants

APPENDIX 3 – List of Speakers