Search

The International Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) issued a new version of the general rules on food hygiene in 2020, which revised and improved the structure, definition and technical contents of the standard, clarified the important role of good hygiene practices in food safety management, and emphasized the advantages of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCPL) in dealing with more complex food safety issues. It also added the latest achievements of standardization research in the field of food safety in recent years, such as allergen control and food safety culture. By comparing the new version of the standard with the 2003 edition of general principles of food hygiene, this paper expounds and analyzes the main changes of the new version of the standard in detail, so as to provide reference for the formulation and implementation of food-related standards in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Codex Alimentarius Commission had published the latest version of “General principles of food hygiene （CXC 1-1969）” on 23th November， 2020， which was significantly meaningful for the development of food safety management and HACCP principle. Furthermore， CXC 1-1969 was considered as the reference for the composition of the 2021 “Hazard analysis and critical control point （HACCP） system certification accreditation regulation” published by the Certification and Accreditation Administration of China on 30th July， 2021. The update of CXC 1-1969 extended the connotation of Good Hygiene Practices （GHPs） by examples and explanation as well as clearly defined the differences of preventive controls between GHPs and critical control points （CCPs）. In addition， the updated version added food safety key issues， such as allergen management and food safety culture. This article explains the change details of CXC 1-1969 by contrasting with the 2003 version and provides ideas to the development and application of HACCP system in China.

In this article, the classification of dual commodity as food and feed for evaluation of pesticide residues by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was summarized. Methods for conducting dietary intake risk assessment and establishing maximum residue limit (MRL) for pesticides in dual commodity as food and feed were presented. A case study further clarified the evaluation methodologies of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), which could provide a reference for improving the techniques in relevant fields in China. Meanwhile, suggestions and advises were put forward based on the current situation in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Food Safety & Quality is the property of Journal of Food Safety & Quality Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Food Safety & Quality is the property of Journal of Food Safety & Quality Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Serious alert and border rejection notifications on food contact materials (FCM) retrieved from the RASFF database were analyzed for the first time regarding the period 2012-2019. The findings indicate that China was the main transgressor country for both types of notifications. Official controls were responsible for most FCM serious alerts (91.78%), and border rejection (90.82%) notifications. Another novelty proposed herein, is the criterion for "lag phases" (time from sampling to notification dates). Overall percentage distributions of lag phases, for all RASFF Member States, for the intervals of 0-50 days and 51-≥101 days, were 25.09% and 67.87% for serious alert notifications and 65.21% and 29.34% for serious border rejection notifications. Differences in percent shares of lag phase intervals were observed between the top-four notifying countries, indicating a lack of harmonization in timely reporting of serious alert and border rejection notifications for FCM. Migration of primary aromatic amines and of metals were the most frequently notified hazards overall in the period of analysis. A decreasing trend is observed in the two more recent biannual averages of serious alert notifications for primary aromatic amines and metals, while decreasing for metals but increasing for primary aromatic amines in serious border rejection notifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Food Safety & Quality is the property of Journal of Food Safety & Quality Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Pesticide residues in food commodities of animal origin have been in the spotlight in recent years. Currently, however, the practice of pesticide dietary risk assessment and maximum residue limits (MRL) recommendation in food of animal origin based on experimental data in China is very few. In this article, data requirements, estimation of pesticide residue level, dietary risk assessment, and MRL recommendation methods with respect to food commodities of animal origin were presented in the light of Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) practices. Meanwhile, the current status of pesticide residue definitions and MRL establishment in food commodities of animal origin in Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was analyzed. Suggestions and advises were given for relevant research aspects considering the actual situation in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Food Safety & Quality is the property of Journal of Food Safety & Quality Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Food Safety & Quality is the property of Journal of Food Safety & Quality Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We identify the origins, and key characteristics, of the current regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the European Union (EU). We focus on the approach of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assessing GMO risks to public and environmental health. An historical account informs our critical appraisal of the current practices of EFSA's GMO panel, and helps to explain how and why it fails to satisfy the objectives of the EU's GMO legislation. While those legislative texts set appropriate objectives, their concrete implementation has fallen far short of the legislative goals. EFSA's prevailing approach to GM crop and food risk assessment starts from what it terms a 'comparative safety assessment'. Those comparisons require the scrutiny of sets of molecular, chemical and phenotypic data from GM plants and non-GM varieties (many of which may be only remotely related to the GM variety). Those data are, however, inadequate for predicting adverse biological, toxicological and ecological effects. EFSA's 'comparative safety assessments' draw over-optimistic conclusions from too little data from too few studies. When GM products are deemed to have passed a 'comparative safety assessment', EFSA has interpreted that as grounds for conducting only very narrowly circumscribed risk assessments, which have not required meaningful data from studies of ecological or eco-toxicological impacts. This is a reductionist approach to risk assessment, when a more inclusive and comprehensive approach, which we outline, is scientifically available, and also more likely to meet the specified legislative aims. Instead, however, the reductionist choice is systematically applied, but never justified nor acknowledged as such. Indeed, it is concealed, by EFSA and by its main policy client the European Commission, as if it were only for specialist expert scientific deliberation. Thus, key questions that sound scientific assessments should ask about potential harm are not even posed, let alone answered—or at least, they are 'answered' only by default, given that the implicit burden of proof requires harm to be demonstrated. Furthermore, and a key point of this paper, we show how the problematic features of EFSA's approach have been premised on a set of evaluative policy judgements, rather than purely scientific considerations. Responsibility for selecting how EFSA frames its scientific approach should however lie with European Commission risk managers, and not with EFSA. These problems might have been and could be avoided if explicit commitments entered into by the EU at the Codex Alimentarius Commission were implemented by the European Commission and EFSA were instructed accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global guidelines for infant formula say the ingredients are supposed to be those “which have been proved to be suitable for infant feeding.” “Proven” has not been defined, so there has not been any authoritative proof of suitability. Assessment of infant formula has focused on its ingredients. Globally, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has set out a list of ingredients that should be in all infant formula, while also giving national governments the option to introduce some variations within that framework. As illustrated by the practice in the United States, infant formula that includes the ingredients specified in the global guidelines and in national law is described as nutritionally adequate. This is not good enough. The gold standard against which infant formula should be compared is optimal breastfeeding. The comparison should be based not on examination of formula’s ingredients but on examination of its performance. Does infant formula do what it is supposed to do? Does feeding with any particular type of infant formula protect the health of infants and their mothers as well as breastfeeding? If not, it is not functionally adequate. Some might argue that while infant formula is not quite as good as breastfeeding for protecting infants’ health, it is not much worse. Families might have their own reasons for feeding their infants with formula. There is a need for serious discussion of the gap between breastfeeding and feeding with formula and about the degree to which considerations other than the infant’s health might play a role. New parents should be supported in making wise, well-informed choices about how they will feed their infants.

In recent years, transgenic technology has been widely applied in many fields. There is concern about the safety of genetically modified (GM) products with the increased prevalence of GM products. In order to prevent mastitis in dairy cows, our group produced transgenic cattle expressing human beta-defensin-3 ( HBD3 ) in their mammary glands, which confers resistance to the bacteria that cause mastitis. The milk derived from these transgenic cattle thus contained HBD3. The objective of the present study was to analyze the nutritional composition of HBD3 milk and conduct a 90-day feeding study on rats. Rats were divided into 5 groups which consumed either an AIN93G diet (growth purified diet for rodents recommended by the American Institute of Nutrition) with the addition of 10% or 30% HBD3 milk, an AIN93G diet with the addition of 10% or 30% conventional milk, or an AIN93G diet alone. The results showed that there was no difference in the nutritional composition of HBD3 and conventional milk. Furthermore, body weight, food consumption, blood biochemistry, relative organ weight, and histopathology were normal in those rats that consumed diets containing HBD3. No adverse effects were observed between groups that could be attributed to varying diets or gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]