IN order to realise international re-engagement, Zimbabwe needs to be aware, issues of food safety have been recognised by the EU, WHO and the Codex Alimentarius (Food Code) as a non-consensual, growing concern, because of the possible existence of a link between anti-bacterial residues in meat and the development of microbial resistance, thus justifying the need for proper regulation.
It should be noted that the reference to anti-bacterial resistance includes antibiotics, sulphunamides and quinolones, and that this chosen definition is in accordance with the one used across the legal documents currently in force within the EU.
It is important for Zimbabwe to note that the definition of residue, for the EU, not only includes substances with pharmacological effects, but also their metabolites or other substances transmitted to animal products that are likely to be harmful to human health.
The EU has developed an impressive body of legal instruments that relate to food safety. In broad terms, there is general food safety legislation, applicable to all kinds of food, and there is more specific legislation, directed towards specific products.
Specific food and feed law cover, among many other subjects, food residues and contaminants.
Food safety legislation has closely accompanied scientific development in the field of food safety. Quality management systems for food safety are based on public legislation and on private standards; both having the Codex Alimentarius as its foundation.
Codex Alimentarius is a code of practice based on scientific evidence, established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and WHO.
Its goals are to protect consumers’ meat safety and to facilitate international trade.
It has no mandatory aspects, but acts as a basis for many legal standards, including those of the EU of which our Zimbabwean beef farmers and producers need to take heed.
The EU has acted pre-emptively, even on questions still not subject to scientific consensus, following some major food scares that occurred in Europe since the 1980s that were associated with different types of meat — namely BSE in beef, dioxins in pork and poultry, among others; some of the most serious meat safety issues involve microbial agents, such as campylobacter, salmonella spp. and verocytotoxigenic e. coli infections and the use of anti-bacteria/antibiotics as a feed additive.
Although substances with hormonal action are prohibited in farm animals within the EU, consumers began to express concerns about anti-bacterial and hormonal residues and GMOs, among others, with regard to meat safety.
Within the EU private quality management systems have been developed mostly by the food distribution sector and generally include the legal requirements pertaining to food safety, while trying to complement them.
Some examples within the European Union include GLOBALG.A.P. (G.A.P.) – Good Agricultural Practice; formerly EUREPGAP – Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group, British Retail Consortium (BRC), International Food Standard (IFS), European Food Safety Inspection Service (EFSIS) and Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI).
The following is a list of legal instruments that regulate and control the use of anti-bacterial drugs in meat production as well as the presence of drug residues in meat products throughout the EU:
Regulation (EC) No. 470/2009 –
Describes the procedures to evaluate the safety of residues of pharmacologically active substances in accordance with human safety requirements;
establishes a maximum residue level (MRL) for pharmacologically active substances used in veterinary medicinal products for each relevant food product (eggs, meat, milk, etc.) for each relevant species.
Annexes include
all the pharmacologically active substances with marketing authorization used in veterinary medicinal products, according to their MRL status;
The administration of veterinary medicinal products containing pharmacologically active substances included in Annex IV (such as nitrofurans) to food producing animals, prohibited within the EU.
Council Directive 96/22/EC
Prohibits the use of beta-agonists and other substances with hormonal or thyrostatic action in livestock farming, once it is acknowledged that their action may be dangerous for consumers and may also affect the quality of food-stuffs of animal origin. In no case can an animal to which one of these substances has been applied enter the food chain.
Council Directive 96/23/EC
Establishes the measures that EU member-states should take to monitor substances and their residues in both live animals and animal products;
Defines measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues such as substances with anabolic effect and unauthorised substances, veterinary drugs and contaminants.
Directive 2001/82/EC
Regulates the prescription and distribution of veterinary medicinal products intended for use in food-producing animals;
Defines the withdrawal period as the period necessary to protect public health, between the last administration of a veterinary medical product to animals and the production of food-stuffs from such animals.
Although legal frameworks play a major role in guaranteeing microbiological safety of meat products throughout the entire EU food chain to guarantee the absence of any future outbreaks, a segment of consumers within the EU have nonetheless expressed their preferences for beef with quality labels such as ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ (PDO) or other guaranteed origin schemes, for which they are willing to pay premiums for meat products.
For example, surveys conducted in Portugal found that consumers invariably associate ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ (PDO) to safer beef products.
Free-range or organic meat and other meat products with certified production methods are also associated with safety guarantees; even though there is no evidence that organic food is safer than conventional products.
Quality strategies involving guaranteed traceability are also preferred by consumers when it comes to additional safety guarantees in food safety.
Therefore, in order to promote preventive health and animal welfare management in meat production systems, there should be a more efficient and rational use of anti-bacteria substances, which is often being associated, by consumers, with safer and/or even higher quality meat.
Preventive plans, applied together with certification schemes guaranteeing sound usage of anti-bacterial residues could create a market niche for such meat products, providing producers with incentives to supply meat and meat products in accordance to standards above those legally imposed by the EU; since there, undoubtedly, is an attractive market for such meat products.
It must be stressed, however, that such certification schemes must be associated with higher production costs, which necessarily represents higher prices for consumers.
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD in Art Theory and Philosophy and a DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration) and Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He is a writer, lecturer, a specialist Post-Colonial Scholar and Zimbabwean Socio-Economic analyst and researcher. E-mail: HYPERLINK “mailto:tonym.MONDA@gmail.com”tonym.MONDA@gmail.com