Post Brexit trade with the US

Food Science and TechnologyVolume 35, Issue 2 p. 18-20 Brexit ViewsFree Access Post trade with the US First published: 15 June 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsat.3502_4.xAboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text full-text accessPlease review our Terms Conditions of Use check box below share version article.I have read accept Wiley Online Library UseShareable LinkUse link a this article your friends colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Grace McNally, Kelsey Kanyuck Lindsey Bagley, IFT British section committee members, discuss potential impact safety regulations misinformation on post deal between UK US. The was inspired by panel discussion US-UK food issues hosted (Institute Technologists) in February 2021. In wake Brexit, has an opportunity reach deals other countries, such as EU established common community for free flow goods based same legislation, industry practices. Trade countries outside will need take account these so that mutual compliance is achieved. paramount be most important factor consider when negotiating any Whilst approach two different, ultimately end goal – safe consumers. Another hurdle differences legislation regulation relating production standards. This explores some UK. Unfortunately, key message ‘safe food’ been lost amongst media headlines raise consumer concerns. News brought particular attention chlorine washed chicken, hormone treated meat, artificial colours, flavourings additives name but few. Misinformation lack general understanding raised concerns fear consumers, anger farmers growers posed challenges decision makers governing bodies. practices allowed become topic debate. Will move away from governed EFSA (European Safety Authority) negative standards UK, animal welfare, environmental protection safety? question can only addressed case-by-case basis. Regulations general, takes prerequisite practices, (Table 1). They are put place at early stage avoid problems rather than later they arise. their roots English Common Law, which loosely permits behaviour unless explicitly forbidden. began diverge principle it signed treaty Rome joined EEC 1958. European law Napoleonic law, prohibits permitted generally coupled precautionary principle. These approaches regions. Table 1. Key Approach United Kingdom States Process Product Prerequisite Retrospective Hazard Risk Chlorine washing One highly discussed topics UK/US acceptance rinsed chicken consumer. science behind practice, used currently banned poultry often not well understood. What washing? process removing bacteria surface foods, salad products. By passing products through chlorinated water, harmful Campylobacter Salmonella killed thereby reducing risk foodborne illness. low levels (less 30ppm) fresh-water rinsing remove residual chlorine. salads widely both UK1. Is chlorine-washed safe? No assessment regulatory body shown concern chicken. fact, EFSA, its use EU, said exposure residues ‘no concern’. position US, practice retrospective processing. Rinsing removes focuses product potentially hazard process. National Chicken Council reports less 10% processing plants actually since 1997. relying could poorer hygiene earlier handling. Animal husbandry were negate Current includes cold air water decontaminate carcases. According RSPCA2, ‘farm fork’ ensures high across all stages disinfection step using end. Welfare producing 2). welfare throughout ensure needed. Maintaining very much top mind 2. Differences Legislation EU: Directive 98/58/EC3 lays down rules concerning farmed animals federal control welfare. USDA: Act 1996 excludes farm UK: addresses e.g. Farmed Animals (England) 20004 Voluntary Red tractor certified standards, Leaf Soil Association Organic adopted nationally recognised Guidelines mostly universally producers voluntarily Labelling Under current rules, chlorine-rinsing considered aid therefore declared pack. Similarly labelled. It unclear if imported into would identifiable. also debate about deal. Although there systems, approved foods approval scientific testing. ancient chemist Paracelsus first explained ‘the dose makes poison’. Just because chemical present, does mean amount present. Even chemicals, or salt, too kill you. follows similar principle, where compounds specified levels. Many functional ingredients including flavours potency sweeteners regulated three criteria: specific identity, in, level may used. However, addition safety, environment, sustainability transparency priorities consumers evaluating additives. For price more concern. Regulation Before joining had list flavouring substances banning those found adverse health effects. uses positive (the Union list). Everything, nature, before being flavourings. ‘relaxed’ list. Flavor Extract Manufacturers (FEMA) (GRAS). A big difference List FEMA GRAS owned controlled legislature. flavour Industry. FDA handed over control, management policing experts, audits comply Federal Law. definitions what constitutes ‘natural’ different narrow proscriptive flexible open interpretation. rest world tends follow IOFI (International Organisation Flavour Industry) aiming produce global choice make. colours allows seven under FD&C (Federal Food, Drug Cosmetic) Act. Three require special labelling following study University Southampton suggesting hyperactivity children. Referred ‘Southampton Six’, are: 1 Tartrazine (FD&C Yellow No. 5), Allura 40), 3 Ponceau 4R (not US), 4 Sunset 6), 5 Carmoisine US) 6 Quinoline US). Subsequent study, Parliament new containing must now labelled number, words ‘may effect activity children’. six Recently, ingredient suppliers made natural colouring available. significant cost line aspirations. originate wide range sources like vegetables, fruits, plants, minerals edible sources. Products formulated sought High (HPS) calorie sweeteners. again restricted category, type level. Also HPS fulfil requirement having either ‘reduced energy’ and/or added sugar’. maximum several (termed General Purpose Sweetener, GPS) above complexity regions illustrated reference soft drinks EU. 3. Sweetener USA (EU) Permitted sweetener? Max. concentration drinks[1] (mg/l) Acesulfame-K GPS[2], FE[3] Yes 350 Advantame GPS, FE Aspartame GPS 600 Aspartame-acesulfame salt GPS[4] Wherever aspartame & acesulfame-K together Cyclamate Na, Ca salts Not 250 expressed acid form Lo Han Guo aka Monk fruit GRAS[5] notifications Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone notification FEMA[6] 30 Neotame 20 Saccharin K, (& NH3 applications[7] 80 Steviol glycosides Specified only[8] steviol equivalent[9] Sucralose 300 Thaumatin Very limited applications 0.5 mg/l Notes: 1) Soft main application HPS, hence category illustrate UK's 2) = (can beverages except meat determined good manufacturing practice). 3) Enhancer 4) regards covered component 5) Generally Recognised As Safe 6) 7) GPS. beverages, juice drinks, sugar substitutes processed subject various concentrations. 12mg/fluid ounce, equal 406mg/l, saccharin. 8) Dulcoside A, Rebaudiosides A,B,C,D,E,F,M, Rubusoside, Steviolbioside, Stevioside 9) Actual each glycoside depends molecular mass. example, rebaudioside 80mg equivalent provided 242mg reb A. Conclusions examples highlighted (EU). reflect country's regulation. Fundamentally systems designed safe. really bare minimum, many companies go beyond required (e.g. organic Tractor). overcomes barriers. changes formulation labelling, question. Conference Board Canada 2014 performance 17 ranked 4th 6th5. There no indication one safer and, world's supply ever been! Highlighting minor national diminish confidence reality achieving goal. Bagley members ‘USA-UK issues: practices’ 21st, panellists Helen Munday, Jack Bobo, Kantha Shelke acknowledged contributing themes article. recording event YouTube channel (IFT Section) at: youtu.be/lBty8bOVWyo With additional thanks Professor David Baines, Mr Richard Bowles Dr John Fry inputs. References 1https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cot/cotstatementwashaids200614.pdf 2https://www.rspcaassured.org.uk/news-and-updates/posts/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/ 3https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5b04f403-0abf-4356-aa53-6dc867b07bcb/language-en 2000 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1870/contents/made) 5https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269630719_2014_World_Ranking_Food_Safety_Performance Volume35, Issue2June 2021Pages ReferencesRelatedInformation