ARCHIVED - Report On A Workshop To Develop A Framework For Microbial Food Safety Policy Research - Ottawa, 7- 8 March, 2005

15 January 2006

Volume 32

Number 02

Introduction and background

The primary goal of microbial food safety (MFS) policy is to improve public health by minimizing the risk of illness due to foodborne disease. In Canada, MFS policy embraces a sciencebased approach, but there are additional domains of evidence or "constructs" that affect policy development and implementation. The 2004 Justice Haines report on meat safety in Ontario noted that "While science is an important element in developing food safety policy, it is not the only consideration. Social values, ethics, consumer demands, economic and political considerations will all impact these policy decisions⁽¹⁾ ". Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Committee on Food Safety and Nutrition states, as one of its general principles, that "While protection of public health is the primary objective, food policy recommendations will have regard, where appropriate, to economic and other legitimate factors⁽²⁾" . Thus, there is a growing recognition that constructs in addition to the biological domain can contribute to developing policy priorities, options, and implementations.

A workshop was conducted to begin developing a multi-construct framework for MFS policy research. The objectives of this workshop were as follows:

1. To assemble national and international scientists, relevant policy-makers, and contributors to MFS research and policy.

2. To identify and illustrate areas of commonality and difference among organizations and stakeholder groups in their perceptions of the multiple constructs and the importance of each construct to the prioritization, development, implementation, and effectiveness of MFS policy initiatives.

3. 3. To identify areas of research that would incorporate multiple constructs into MFS policy and to communicate information from multiple constructs between organizational groups.

4. To begin to create communities of practice that span jurisdictions and stakeholder groups and incorporate expertise in multiple construct areas.

Methods

The 2-day workshop was held 7 to 8 March, 2005, in Ottawa. Participants were selected to provide a range of expertise from different disciplines in research and policy decision-making. The group in attendance comprised 42 individuals with knowledge and backgrounds in economics, sociology, psychology, epidemiology, anthropology, microbiology, food technology, and other disciplines. A mix of researchers and policy decisionmakers from academia and government was represented. Twenty-five of the participants were from academia, and the 17 government participants represented both the federal and provincial levels with responsibilities in public health and agriculture. Participants were from four provinces in Canada, from the United States, and the Netherlands.

An initial series of presentations provided background on MFS policy in Canada, overviewed food safety policy goals in Canada and internationally, introduced concepts related to a multiconstruct research approach, and provided illustrative examples of non-biological inputs to MFS policy. The concept of a population health approach that addresses the entire range of health determinants and examples of the repercussions of not having such an approach were presented. The format of the workshop consisted of presentations, breakout groups, and full group discussion sections for summarization of ideas generated by the breakout groups. A series of questions were used to stimulate discussion and to work towards the development of a framework for MFS policy research. Specifically, participants discussed the construct inputs needed to address food safety goals, the constraints to producing safe food, data sources and knowledge gaps, and opportunities. The final afternoon was spent on the development of a framework for MFS. For the purposes of this workshop, "policy" included not only formal regulation but also less formal policies, such as best management practices.

Results and discussion

A number of construct areas with the potential to have an impact on MFS policy development and implementation were identified, as follows:

1. Biological (bio-environmental). This approach employs traditional laboratory research, surveillance, epidemiology, risk assessment data, and other science-based information in order to make decisions and/or to inform policy development. Incorporating the environment into the definition acknowledges that biological factors exist, and interact, within the physical environment.

2. Economic. This construct pertains to financial and economic considerations, including farm sustainability, export markets, trade issues and their impact on the agri-food sector, and how risk is assessed in light of economic constraints.

3. Socio-cultural. This construct includes cognitive factors such as individuals' perceptions of risk and their values related to approaching risk and risk reduction, and social factors such as cultural, ethnic, and behavioural practices.

4. Political (geo-political). This construct pertains to "small p" political inputs, such as individual or group agendas or stances, political pressure, trade positioning, and the context in which a food safety issue occurs.

5. Ethical. This construct includes moral and ethical codes of conduct.

Governance (including regulation and legislation), health systems, and communication/education also were recognized as important inputs. It was noted that the constructs are, in many cases, interrelated. The purpose of identifying the construct areas was not to "fit ideas into boxes" but, rather, to stimulate discussion of a wide range of potentially important inputs.

The constraints and limitations to the development and implementation of MFS policy that were identified were both knowledge-based and process-based. While a lack of essential biological data was identified as an important constraint, many of the constraints related to other construct areas. Key constraints included lack of funding, lack of coordination/communication within and between disciplines, the complexity of industry structures, liability issues, time pressures, conflicting expectations at various levels of government, lack of explicit ethical consideration in food safety policy, and communication and educational constraints in both the general public and at all levels of the "farm to fork" continuum.

MFS research contributes to good policy; therefore, there is a need for credible and accessible information and data. It is important to identify both the uses of and concerns relating to currently available data. In doing so, data "gaps" can be identified that, if filled, would lead to enhanced MFS policies. The participants identified a large number and range of potential data sources from all of the construct areas. However, it was noted that some of the data collected are not valid, not accessible or not used to the extent possible, or are specific to a construct area rather than being truly multi-disciplinary in nature. The data gaps identified included both data specific to a construct area and across multiple constructs.

A number of opportunities for advancing MFS policy research were identified. These included the creation of interdisciplinary and multi-jurisdictional groups to integrate the multiple constructs into a common approach. This approach was identified not only as a research opportunity but also as an opportunity to improve communication and create training opportunities.

Several of the opportunities identified involved the expansion of existing research approaches, such as risk assessment and surveillance, to encompass not only biological and economic issues but also socio-cultural and political inputs. It was suggested that lessons could be learned from other health areas and from the experiences of other countries. It was noted that the broad expertise of the participants could be captured in advisory committees or as a register of experts.

The final afternoon of the workshop was spent developing a framework for MFS policy research. Two approaches emerged. One of the frameworks described a systems approach that seeks to define the underlying structure of food production and policy, and the interactions between the component parts. The other framework was process-oriented and described the necessary research inputs to the policy decision-making process.

In the systems approach, organizational levels for policy decisionmaking were identified. These ranged from the physical processes (the microbes), through staff, management, corporation, regulator, and government levels. Specific to MFS, there is also a continuum of food production that includes discrete sectors (i.e. farm to fork). Each of these sectors contains the organizational levels. This results in a complex matrix, as shown in Figure 1.

The food production system can thus be seen not just as a continuum but also as a matrix of "organizational cells" in which there is vertical organization of cells within each sector and a horizontal organization of cells at the same organizational level between sectors in the food production continuum. This framework formalizes the complex potential interactions of policy initiatives and facilitates identification of how decisions affecting MFS at the level of one cell in the system can affect other, indirectly linked, cells in the system. For instance, a biological intervention initiated on a farm at the worker level may appear to be effective at the physical process and staff level in the farm sector and through physical process levels to the consumer sector, but because of unforeseen economic constraints at the corporate level of the processing sector, it is unworkable. The decision to implement an MFS intervention at the corporate level in the processing sector could have implications not only for retail and consumer organizational levels, but also at various organizational levels within the farm sector. Defining and understanding these complex interactions will aid in MFS policy selection and evaluation.

Figure 1. A systems approach to MFS policy research

The process framework by which MFS research can provide input to policy decision-making is outlined as follows:

1. The specific MFS issue is identified and put into context.

2. Researchers from different construct areas are assembled to provide input into the research needed for risk assessment, and policy development and implementation.

3. The target audience for the research results is explicitly identified (i.e. those to whom the results should be communicated).

4. The multidisciplinary team identifies the research constructs appropriate to the specific issue.

5. The research methodologies necessary to address the issues and concerns from all of the relevant constructs are identified. These may be construct specific (e.g. an economic cost-benefit analysis) or may require multiple construct inputs.

6. Existing knowledge to address the issue is identified and appropriately synthesized. Information gaps, and the necessary research to address those gaps, are identified.

7. The most appropriate means of dissemination of the research results are determined (i.e. how the research results should be communicated).

This process is flexible enough to apply to any research question relevant to MFS policy while maintaining transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability.

There is potential for the two approaches to be integrated into a single framework. The process approach is applicable to the research initiatives of individual organizational cells within the systems approach and also could be used to determine the interactions between organizational cells.

This framework represents an initial effort; further refinement is necessary to validate the specific organizational levels and sectors in the systems approach and expand the potential methodological inputs to the process approach. Application of the framework to address specific food safety issues will allow for validation of the models and illustrate their usefulness to the policy process.

Acknowledgements

Financial contribution for this workshop was provided by the Health Policy Research Program, Health Canada (Contribution agreement # 6795-15-2004 / 6590001). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official policy of Health Canada.

References

1. Haines RJ. 2004. Farm to fork: A strategy for meat safety in Ontario. Report of the meat regulatory and inspection review. 2004. Available at: <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/meatinspectionreport/>. Accessed 20 July, 2005.
2. HC/CFIA Committee on Food Safety and Nutrition. 2003. Available at: <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/friia-raaii/iap-pia/e_terms.html >. Accessed 20 July, 2005.