write a summary for it and talk about the strength and weakness in the article use critical thinking for that
European food scares and their
impact on EU food policy
Tim Knowles and Richard Moody
Hollings Faculty, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, and
Morven G. McEachern
Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to chart the wide range of food scares reported throughout the EU over
the period 1986-2006 and explores their impact on EU policy.
Design/methodology/approach – There is much extant research that solely investigates the
occurrences of specific food scares, however; little emphasis is given to the responses of policy makers.
This research aims to narrow this gap in the literature by reviewing the major food scares, which have
occurred throughout the EU and the subsequent policy responses.
Findings – A number of food scares have dominated media reports over the last two decades, but
this study reveals the increasing emergence of rare serotypes of foodborne pathogens, as well as a
rising trend of EU-wide contaminant and animal disease-related food scares. Simultaneously, there is
evidence of evolution from a product-focused food policy to a risk-based policy, which has developed
into a tentative EU consumer-based food policy. Inevitably, in a market of 25 member-states the
concept of food quality varies between countries and therein justifies the need for responsive policy
development, which embraces the single market philosophy.
Research limitations/implications – A typology of EU food scares is advanced and discussed in
detail, with comments being made on their impact. In addition, the paper highlights the complexity of
a EU consumer, which has led to a need for research into the maximisation of the satisfaction of
purchasers by reinsuring their individual “right to choose”.
Originality/value – This paper provides a unique insight into a wide range of European food scares
(e.g. microbiological, contaminants, animal disease-related) and EU policy makers’ responses to such
food scares.
Keywords Food industry, Food safety, Food controls, European Union
Paper type General review
Introduction
Prior to the mid 1970s, food safety was neither a significant political, scientific or
societal concern (Cooter and Fulton, 2001). One of the earliest recorded food safety
incidents took place in southern France in AD944, where 40,000 people died of ergotism
(Purvis, 2004). However, no one referred to this as a “food hazard” (see Fife-Schaw and
Rowe, 2000), “moral panic” (see Beardsworth, 1990) or “food scare” (see Mitchell and
Greatorex, 1990). In fact, the term “food scare” first appeared in the print media in the
mid-1980s, in relation to Tylenol tablets being laced with cyanide (Campbell and
Fitzgerald, 2001), an activity which is now referred to as “bioterrorism” (Nestle, 2004).
No lexical definition of the term “food scare” exists, with the result that the term is
applied to a variety of food safety-related contexts. It is generally associated with
spiralling public anxiety over food safety incidents and escalating media attention that
supplements such events. Moreover, whether some safety issues develop into
fully-fledged food scares or not, depends mainly on the magnitude of risk faced by
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
European food
scares
43
British Food Journal
Vol. 109 No. 1, 2007
pp. 43-67
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/00070700710718507
consumers and the extent of media attention devoted to that specific food safety issue.
Note the scale of media interest often intensifies further if government bodies appear
reluctant to disseminate relevant information (Tansey and Worsley, 1999). Due to
varying levels of consumer trust in the media, scientists and government officials,
country-specific differences may also occur regarding the development of food scares
(Lindgreen, 2003).
Since the mid 1980s, most Western European countries have experienced at least
one or more significant food scare (e.g. BSE, E-Coli, Salmonella, Dioxin residues). In
terms of their evolution, both cultural (e.g. consumer ambivalence towards food;
increased numbers of consumers removed from food production) and socio-economic
(e.g. consumer emphasis on price/value) trends in conjunction with intensive media
coverage interact to incite acute bouts of widespread public anxiety (Frewer et al., 1993;
Fitzgerald and Campbell, 2001; De Boer et al., 2003). Consequently, this process creates
a short-term negative impact upon consumer consumption/purchase behaviour as well
as negatively impact upon the producer, manufacturer or retailer (Roosen et al., 2003;
Friedberg, 2004). Mazzocchi (2004, p. 1) also acknowledges this fairly standard pattern,
but adds public concern often gradually decreases as media attention moves away
from the issue, thus returning to a new “equilibrium”. A number of various
activist/pressure groups (e.g. PETA, WSPA, RSPCA), scientific organisations,
government bodies and journalists all play a key role in providing food safety
information. Consequently, the magnitude of European food scares and their media
coverage has provided momentum for the emergence of the “informed consumer”
(Assael, 2004; Berry and McEachern, 2005) as well as a switch in emphasis from a EU
food policy to a consumerist-centred food policy.
The aim of this paper is to conduct a review of the major food scares that have
occurred throughout Europe during the period 1986 to mid-2006 and investigate both
the reaction and precautionary measures subsequently implemented by European
policy makers. It is anticipated that the main contribution of this paper will be to
provide a unique insight into a wide range of “food scares” and present a critical
analysis relating to EU policy makers’ responses to many of these food scares.
European food scares – an overview
The development of European surveillance networks intensified as a result of the many
European-wide food scares during the 1990s (Fisher and Gill, 2001). In addition to
epidemiologic surveillance systems for humans, it is also necessary to conduct
surveillance of animal diseases. This aids the provision of information for both
international trade and zoonotic-related disease outbreaks. Consequently, reporting
variations frequently occur as some European countries choose voluntary as opposed
to mandatory reporting systems. One example of a surveillance system is Enter-net,
which monitors enteric infections (e.g. Salmonella, E. coli) within Europe. This EU-wide
network is currently supported by the Basic Surveillance Network and other Disease
Specific Networks such as EUROCJD. Despite the addition of ten new member states to
the European Union (EU) in 2004, few food scare examples from newer members such
as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are included in this paper, due to limited
monitoring systems. Further explanation of this limited access is provided by Kaiser
and Coulombier (2006) who conclude that, 11 EU countries possess no formal
mechanism for dissemination of “epidemic intelligence” (i.e. identification, verification,
BFJ
109,1
44
assessment and investigation of potential health threats). Subsequently, Lenglet and
Herna´ndez-Pezzi (2006) in their comparison of European surveillance systems, call for a
standardisation of EU monitoring and reporting procedures in the EU.
In order that both a context and appropriate typology can be advanced, Table I
illustrates a chronological timeline of the main “food scares” that have occurred over
the period 1986-2006 throughout Europe. These are defined as single or collective
incidents, which are particularly focused upon by the media and by relevant
Government agencies. For ease of reporting, the scares are categorised as
microbiological, contaminant and animal disease-related (e.g. Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) via new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD)) food
incidents. It is apparent that the origins/cause of each of the reported food scares may
vary (i.e. specific outbreak of E. coli, activist campaigns/publications detailing specific
warnings) but the inclusion of all three categories is based on the fact that each type of
food scare has driven both consumer buying behaviour trends and food policy
developments throughout Europe.
Microbiological related scares – Salmonella, Campylobacter, Botulism, Listeria, E. coli
One of the first major microbiological-related “food scares” reported to have an adverse
effect on consumer perceptions and consumption behaviour throughout Europe was
the foodborne pathogen of Salmonella. In particular, between the months of May and
October in 1988, a number of UK food poisoning incidents were reported from
hospitals, city banquets and the House of Lords, each of which were attributed to the
consumption of eggs and cheese (Tansey and Worsley, 1999; Atkins and Bowler, 2001).
In November 1988, the Department of Health issued a UK warning to the general public
to avoid eating raw eggs (Lacey, 1989). One month later, the former UK Health Minister
Edwina Currie announced on Independent Television News that the majority of UK
egg production was infected with Salmonella. Following a lawsuit by 12 UK egg
producers, Edwina Currie MP resigned and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (MAFF)[1] set aside £20 million to compensate egg producers (Tansey and
Worsley, 1999). Salmonella levels in UK-produced eggs are now a third of what they
were in 1996 (FSA, 2004). Similarly, Denmark has also witnessed a significant
reduction in Salmonella cases related to eggs. Here, 60 per cent of human cases were
egg-related in 1997 reducing to 31 per cent in 2002 (Mølbak, 2004). In contrast, Spanish
foodborne outbreaks as a result of egg/egg product consumption have not declined
since 1998 (Crespo et al., 2005). The main causative agent associated with eggs is the
Salmonella serotype Enteritidis. Gillespie and Elson (2005) conclude that the main
source of Salmonella Enteritidis infections in northern England in 2005 was due to
increased UK imports of Spanish eggs. Other food scares associated with Salmonella
Enteritidis were reported in 1998 from Greece (n ¼ 28) and Napoli, Italy (n ¼ 9) the
sources being identified as hamburgers and cream cheese (Hadjichristodoulou et al.,
1999; Panico et al., 1999) respectively. Twenty-five cases were also reported in the
Netherlands in 2004, the cause was identified as contaminated bean sprouts (Fernandes
et al., 2000). The second most common salmonella species is Salmonella Typhimurium.
In 2000, a European outbreak (n ¼ 396) of this strain occurred in five countries: 184
from Iceland; 165 from the UK (i.e. 141 from England & Wales and 24 from Scotland);
28 from the Netherlands; and 19 from Germany (Crook, 2000). Lettuce was identified as
a key source from Iceland, but no single source was identified for all five countries.
European food
scares
45
Microbiological Contaminants Zoonotic/Epizootic
1988 Salmonella in eggs (UK) – –
1989 Listeria (UK) Alar pesticide (EU) BSE (UK)
Salmonella Enteritidis (UK) Sewage contamination of fresh meat (Fr)
Botulism in hazelnut puree (UK)
1990 – Benzene in Perrier bottled water (EU) –
1992 Listeria (Fr) – –
1995 Campylobacter (UK) – –
E. coli (Sw)
1996 E. coli (UK/Sw) – CJD deaths (UK)
FMD (Ty/Gr/Bul)
1998 Salmonella Enteritidis (Gr) – –
Salmonella Bongori (It)
Botulism (It/Fr/UK/No)
1999 Salmonella Typhimurium (Fr) Dioxins in animal feeds (EU) CJD alert in red wine (Fr)
Listeria (Fr) Fungicide/poor carbon dioxide in Coca-Cola (EU)
2000 Salmonella Enteritidis (Ne) – BSE (Fr/Gy/Sp)
Salmonella Typhimurium (UK/Ic/Ne/Gy)
E. coli (Sp)
2001 Listeriosis (Be) Olive oil contamination (Sp/UK) BSE (It)
FMD(UK/Ir/Fr/Ne)
2002 – Nitrofuran in prawns (UK) FMD (UK)
Nitrofen in wheat (EU)
Acrylamide (EU)
2003 Campylobacter (UK/Sp) Mercury poisoning in swordfish (UK) –
E. coli (Dk) Sudan 1 (EU)
2004 E. coli (Dk) Lasalocid in eggs (UK) Avian flu (EU)
Salmonella Enteritidis (Ne) PCB’s and dioxins in salmon (UK)
Salmonella Bovis-morbificans (Gy) Sudan 1 (EU)
2005 Salmonella Bovis-morbificans (Gy) Sudan 1 (EU) Avian flu (EU)
Salmonella Typhimurium (UK/No/Dk/Ne) Para Red (EU)
Campylobacter (Dk)/Listeria (Ne)
Salmonella Hadar (Sp)/E. coli (Fr)
Salmonella Stourbridge (UK/Fr/Swe/Sz/Gy/Au)
2006 Salmonella Montevideo (UK) Benzene in soft drinks (Fr/UK)
Dioxins in animal feed (Be/Ne)
Avian flu (EU)
Table I.
Summary of main
European food scares
BFJ
109,1
46
Another minor scare (n ¼ 6) linked to imported minced beef from Poland was reported
in Norway and Denmark in 2005 (Isakbaeva et al., 2005). However, on a much bigger
scale, Denmark reported another outbreak (n ¼ 26) that year, the source linked to one
pig herd whose pork was prohibited from entering the Danish food chain (Torpdahl
et al., 2006). Again in 2005, the Netherlands reported another major outbreak (n ¼
165), with beef suggested as the likely source (Kivi et al., 2005). Other less common
Salmonella organisms have also been linked to food scares throughout Europe. An
outbreak (n ¼ 7) of Salmonella Bongori (i.e. one of the rarer serotypes) was reported in
Sicily in 1998. This incidence was found to be exclusive to this area of Italy and only
pathogenic in young children (Nastasi et al., 1999). The source was linked to both
pigeon faeces and two sewage plants. In Germany, between November and March
2005, a major scare transpired involving 525 cases of Salmonella Bovis-morbificans,
resulting in the death of one elderly woman (Gilsdorf et al., 2005). The source of the
scare was linked to raw minced pork but no similar scares involving the pathogen were
recorded in other parts of Europe. Later that year, Spain reported a major food scare
involving 2,138 cases of Salmonella Hadar, affecting 17 regions across Spain (Lenglet,
2005). All cases were epidemiologically and microbiologically linked to a single brand
of pre-cooked, vacuum-packed roast chicken. To date, only one death has been
recorded as a result of the pathogen. Between April-July, 2005 another European-wide
food scare relating to Salmonella Stourbridge occurred in France (n ¼ 18), Sweden
(n ¼ 6), Switzerland (n ¼ 3), Germany (n ¼ 9), Austria (n ¼ 5) and the UK (n ¼ 3).
The suspected source of the outbreak was linked to French goat’s cheese, resulting in
two brands being withdrawn from public sale, a public warning in the national press
and notices posted at the point of purchase in all French food retailers (Valliant et al.,
2005). Switzerland and Sweden subsequently banned imports of both brands of cheese.
A recent investigation into a Salmonella Montevideo outbreak (n ¼ 45) was carried out
by the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) in June 2006. Subsequently, the HPA
alerted the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which then issued a food alert to Cadbury
Schweppes Plc, local authorities and consumers (FSA, 2006a). Seven chocolate brands
belonging to Cadbury Schweppes Plc were recalled due to possible contamination of
Salmonella Montevideo (Vasager, 2006). The source of the national outbreak was
linked to a leakage of waste water in one of Cadbury’s production plants. Despite the
company maintaining that levels of contamination were well below their own safety
level of 10 cells per 100 g, Pennington (2006) argues that the only safe level of
Salmonella in chocolate is zero, particularly given the high levels of consumption
amongst children. Experts within the independent Advisory Committee on the
Microbiological Safety of Food also criticised Cadbury’s risk assessment procedures
for being over-reliant on end-product testing as opposed to carrying out regular checks
throughout the manufacturing process (Humphrey, 2006).
Campylobacter is the most commonly reported bacterial pathogen in the EU, with all
EU countries (excluding Spain and Sweden) reporting an increase (i.e. þ32 per cent) in
2004 compared to 2003 (EFSA, 2006). Concerns about the completeness of this data are
perhaps warranted, as Italy reported only one case of Campylobacteriosis between 1999
and 2004 (EFSA, 2006). Campylobacter jejuni is the most common cause of food
poisoning in the UK (Schroder, 2003). Almost 50 per cent of uncooked chicken in
England and Wales and just under 75 per cent in Scotland and Northern Ireland was
contaminated with Campylobacter jejuni in the mid 1990s (IFST, 1995). In 2004, this
European food
scares
47
declined to 62 per cent but was still verified as possessing the second highest level (i.e.
Ireland possessed the highest level – 77 per cent) of Campylobacter in fresh poultry
within the EU (EFSA, 2006). In Spain, Campylobacter organisms are the second most
common cause of bacterial foodborne diseases. A key outbreak (n ¼ 81) in Spain was
reported in 2003. Although the source of the outbreak was linked to custard, it is
believed that cross-contamination occurred with a raw chicken (Jime´nez et al., 2005).
Also linked to cross-contamination of raw chicken was a Danish outbreak (n ¼ 79) in
2005 (Mazick et al., 2006).
Botulism is a fatal bacterial poison produced by the Bacillus botulinus or
Clostridium botulinum organism (Tansey and Worsley, 1999). An outbreak is
defined by the occurrence of two or more cases (one or more in France). Notification
of the disease varies as notification systems and surveillance differs widely
throughout Europe. Several outbreaks have occurred around Europe. During the
period between 1988 and 1998, Therre (1999) identified that Italy, France, Spain and
Germany were most affected by botulism. For example, in the late 1980’s it occurred
in tinned mushrooms and vegetable soup in Italy, shrimps in France and fermented
fish in Norway. One of the largest food scares involving botulism occurred in the
UK in 1989. Here, 27 people were ill and one person died after consuming hazelnut
yoghurt manufactured with cans of hazelnut puree (Brett, 1999). Tests later
confirmed that each yoghurt carton comprised between “1750 and 3750 mouse lethal
doses” (Pennington, 2003, p. 29). Incidences of botulism have now dramatically
reduced. This is mainly due to changes in domestic food practices (i.e. very little
home preservation of foods), improved commercial food preservation techniques and
industrial food processing.
The foodborne transmission of listeriosis possesses a high fatality rate, thus
identified as the 2nd leading cause of fatalities from foodborne disease (after
Salmonella) in France and 4th in the UK (CEE, 2005). Overall, it is believed that most
European countries possess an annual incidence of listeriosis of between 2-10 reported
cases per million population per year (CEE, 2005). Those found to be at risk are
primarily pregnant women, with the result that government warnings direct pregnant
women to avoid paˆte´ and soft-ripened cheeses. Although more commonly found in soft
cheese, unpasteurised milk and certain types of seafood, high levels of Listeria
monocytogenes in pates have also been associated with the bacterium. In March 1989,
imported pates to the UK were screened and high levels of Listeria monocytogenes were
identified. Between 1987 and 1989, the number of deaths from listeriosis, rose to 250.
France has experienced many outbreaks, one in 1992 killing 63 people (Purvis, 2004)
and another in 1999, killing five adults and two newborn babies (De Valk, 2000).
Further evidence of the discrepancies in the European-wide surveillance of Listeria
monocytogenes is evident by the Netherlands who previously estimated up until 2005
that their annual incidence rate was stable at 2 cases per million population. Having
implemented active surveillance of the pathogen in January 2005, they recorded 35
infections in the first half of the year. It is now estimated that their annual incidence
rate is closer to 4.3 cases per million population per year (Doorduyn et al., 2006), a
figure similar to reported incidences in Denmark (i.e. 4.6 cases per million).
E. coli 0157:H7 is a highly virulent organism and impacts most severely on the
young and the elderly. Uncooked ground beef has been identified as a common origin
of E. coli outbreaks, as is fruits and vegetables that come into contact with cattle faeces
BFJ
109,1
48
or with contaminated raw meat (Atkins and Bowler, 2001). Although incidences of
E. coli are increasing (Lacey, 1992; Sprenger, 2006), it affects fewer individuals when
compared to Salmonella and Campylobacter. Between July 1995 and February 1996, 110
cases of E. coli were reported in Sweden. No deaths occurred but half of all cases were
below the age of five (Ziese et al., 1996). Another major E. coli 0157:H7 incident was the
1996 UK-based outbreak in Wishaw, Scotland. Here, a total of 20 people died (mainly
aged over 60) and 500 were affected as a result of eating J.M. Barr & Sons’ cooked pies
(Pennington, 2003). Eley (1997) identifies Scotland as having the second highest
reported rate of E. coli infections in the world (Canada being the highest). Spain also
reported a significant outbreak (n ¼ 181), in 2000, affecting 150 schoolchildren and 31
households (Martinez et al., 2001). Although no deaths occurred, the source of infection
was linked to sausage from a catering company, which was later closed down. One of
the first community-wide outbreaks (n ¼ 26) in France occurred in 2005. Twenty-four
of the cases were children aged under nine but no deaths occurred (Valliant, 2005). The
source was linked to “Chantegrill” beefburgers, which were later withdrawn from
public sale. Similarly, the first general outbreak (n ¼ 25) in Denmark, took place
between September 2003 to March 2004. No deaths occurred and the cause was linked
to an organic dairy that was later closed down (Jensen et al., 2006).
Overall, minimising food-borne microbial pathogens has been a key focus for most
European countries, particularly the UK and France where the majority of
microbiological-related food scares have occurred. While France continues to permit
the sale of unpasteurised milk, the UK Government introduced a partial ban on
unpasteurised milk and distributed warning leaflets to consumers via supermarkets
about the dangers of consuming raw food (1997). In 1990, 1991 and 1995 respectively
they implemented new legislation and Codes of Practice relating to the principles of
Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) and temperature control. HACCP
principles as a food safety initiative also took place throughout Europe (see EU
Directive 93/43). These measures have not only contributed to the reduced number of
Listeria cases (Nestle, 2004) but also reflect the growing influence of health on food
policy. France being just one example has witnessed a twofold reduction in
Listeria-related scares due to such prevention and control measures (De Valk et al.,
2005). The US National Research Council concluded also that HACCP was extremely
successful in eliminating botulism in canned food products (Nestle, 2004). In 2000, the
European Commission updated the original HACCP Directive with a view to
minimising food sampling and testing costs (Bernauer and Caduff, 2004). Vos (2000)
adds that this move also enables the Commission to shift responsibility for meeting EU
Food Law requirements to the food industry, thus moving away from end product
testing. Whilst many apportion blame for the rise in foodborne diseases such as
Salmonella and Campylobacter to the intensification of agricultural production (Lang
and Rayner, 2001; WHO, 2001; Nestle, 2004), the meat industry claims that these
pathogens are “natural occurrences” that can best be minimised by improved hygiene
practices during manufacturing and processing stages (Harper and Le Beau, 2003).
This particular debate manifests itself in terms of the perceived relative risk between
on-farm and domestic household contamination and hygiene standards. Thus, it is
apparent that a balance is needed between a commodity and consumer-based policy.
European food
scares
49
Contaminant-related scares
Contaminant based “food scares” relating to the use of antibiotics, hormones and
pesticides have occurred in a number of food and drink sectors and appear to be of
more concern to consumers compared to hygiene standards and food poisoning (Miles
et al., 2004). Miscellaneous contaminant related incidents such as the sewage
contamination of fresh meat in France in 1999 and the illegal use of growth hormones
have unsettled European consumers’ confidence in meat products (Roosen et al., 2003).
Indeed, since the mid 1980s the EU-wide prohibition of growth-promoting hormones in
beef production and the use of recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), has seen
tensions rise between European and International regulatory bodies (e.g. WTO, Codex
Alimentarius Commission). Although the rBST dispute is temporarily resolved, the
ban on beef hormones continues (Ansell and Vogel, 2005). Currently, the EU is in the
process of undertaking a science-based risk assessment relating to the risk of eating
beef that has been produced using these hormones (Millstone and van Zwanenberg,
2003). Similarly, in addition to being an environmental and ethical concern (see Frewer,
1999; Verdurme and Viaene, 2003), contaminant residues from Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMO) are another example of a safety issue that has caused tensions
between the European Community and International agencies. These prohibitionary
measures provide clear evidence of the EU’s commitment to the precautionary
principle and its endeavour to appease consumer safety concerns.
Antibiotic usage in on-farm production is another contaminant-related concern for
consumers. Consequently, many bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to most
strains of antibiotics, with human resistance levels generally higher in central and
southern Europe compared to northern European countries (Harper and Le Beau, 2003;
Johnson, 2005). Two minor incidences recorded in the UK involved the illegal use of
Nitrofuran, commonly used by shrimp farms (Purvis, 2004) and the use of Lasalocid, an
antibiotic used in UK feedstuffs fed to chickens reared for meat (Soil Association, 2004).
As no deaths occurred as a direct result of either antibiotic contaminant, no warnings
or regulations were enforced or implemented respectively with regard to future use of
either drug. Future consumer concerns over the use of antibiotics may be slightly
appeased by the fact that the European Commission has implemented legislation
prohibiting the use of antibiotics to control disease (Meikle, 2004).
Chemical residues have also caused significant consumer concern. One example is
when carcinogenic benzene was identified in Perrier bottled water in 1990.
Contaminated bottles were uncovered in the USA, Denmark and the Netherlands
(Shears et al., 2001). Contamination levels of 22 parts per billion were reported by the
US Food and Drug Administration but were viewed as not presenting a major health
risk to consumers (Purvis, 2004). In 1999, Coca-Cola also experienced product
contamination, caused by poor quality carbon dioxide and a fungicide residue. Its
impact was felt mainly in France and Belgium, with France prohibiting sales of
Coca-Cola for over six days (Democracy Now!, 1999) and Belgium recalling over 2.5
million bottles of soft drinks (Herbert, 2001). As a result of drinking the contaminated
product, a hundred Belgian people suffered nausea attacks and stomach cramps.
Health concerns later spread to Germany and Spain. This resulted in the German
government releasing a public warning about the greater risk posed by consuming
Coca-Cola that was not manufactured in Germany and a complete withdrawal of
imported Coca-Cola products from Spanish retailers (Hays, 1999). The chemical
BFJ
109,1
50
analysis later revealed that the risk of consuming poor carbon dioxide would cause
nothing more than an unusual smell and therefore ruled the product safe to consume
(Purvis, 2004). Similarly, Verbeke and van Kenhove’s (2002, p. 456) describe this scare
as nothing more than a “mass sociogenic illness” and that the scale of public concern
was motivated by consumers’ lack of trust in the Belgian authorities and their ability to
deal with the dioxin scare which occurred ten days previously. This argument may be
unobjectionable as traces of benzene were again identified in soft drinks in the UK and
France, resulting in the recall of four soft drink products in 2006 (The Grocer, 2006).
However, in comparison to the contamination of Coca-Cola in 1999, the impact of the
scare was minimal. The UK Food Standards Agency’s survey of 150 products later
confirmed that the majority of benzene levels were within the WHO guidelines and that
no concerns were posed to human health (FSA, 2006b).
In July 2001, Spanish and British consumers’ concerns were raised by a batch of
olive oil containing Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), some of which can
cause cancer (FSA, 2001). The Spanish government introduced a temporary ban on
olive-pomace oil. However, it later became apparent that one of the affected batches
was produced in Greece and sold in the UK and the other originated from Italy. The
FSA later withdrew Spanish olive pomace oils and pomace oil products in response to
the Spanish reports. In 2002, acrylamide, a carcinogenic substance was confirmed as
occurring in specific starch-rich foodstuffs that were processed at high temperatures
(e.g. potato crisps, French fries, crispbreads). In contrast to most European food
authorities who have adopted “a wait and see approach”, the German government
introduced a “minimisation concept”, which aimed to reduce the levels of acrylamide in
foods (Euromonitor, 2003).
Pesticide residues in food are another contaminant-related topic that has caused
concern for both European and International consumers (Huang, 1993; The Co-op,
2001). A major crisis highlighted in 1989 concerned the pesticide Alar that is commonly
used on apples and apple products (O’Herrmann et al., 1997). Despite rulings from the
United Nations and MAFF press statements concluding that Alar was not
carcinogenic, both the USA and the UK banned the pesticide (Fumento, 1999;
Hoskins, 1999). Government withdrawal was made easier by the fact that Uniroyal, its
manufacturer withdrew the product due to the negative press coverage. In 2002,
Nitrofen, an illegal pesticide-related scare was highly publicised in Germany. Its
coverage was heightened given that its use was linked to 550 tonnes of organic wheat.
Despite the pesticide having been banned in Europe since 1988, the
cross-contamination from storage scare led to a major loss of consumer confidence
in organic poultry. German supermarkets immediately withdrew organic eggs and
poultry-based products. Export markets to Denmark, Netherlands and Austria were
also affected (Organic Monitor, 2002). More recently, new consumer concerns are being
expressed towards the synergistic effects (i.e. “cocktail effect”) of different pesticide
residues (Luijk et al., 2000). Due to pressure from non-governmental bodies (e.g. organic
certification agencies, Sustain, Pesticides Action Network, etc.), the farming sector has
also recently moved towards more efficient production practices such as Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Crop Management (ICM) programmes. These
minimisation policies have been communicated to consumers via a range of
industry-led, quality assurance schemes (e.g. Eurepgap). Many European countries
have also implemented training and licensing programme for producers, designed to
European food
scares
51
improve product safety and the environmental impact of pesticides. Since 1996, the
European Commission has operated an EU-wide monitoring programme in order to
assess dietary pesticide exposure (see Commission Directive 2002/63/EC). Here,
consumer safety concerns are driving both private and public sectors’ policies on
pesticides.
Other chemical-related scares include dioxin-contaminated foods and
poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found in food (Sta¨rk et al., 2002; Brimer, 2004).
The main sources of human exposure to these compounds are via consumption of
foodstuffs high in fat such as meat, fish, milk, dairy and oily fish (Schro?der, 2003). In
1999, a PCB and dioxin-contaminated batch of transformer oil entered the food chain
via an animal feed mill in Belgium (Shears et al., 2001). This was then fed to broilers
and subsequently recycled into pig-feed, thus affecting poultry, eggs, pork and bacon
products. Analyses revealed dioxin levels exceeded the legal standards by as much as
1,500 times for chicken fat (Verbeke, 2001). Overall, despite significant dioxin levels in
animal feedstuffs and meat tissue, the impact on consumers was minimal. Its impact
however, was felt throughout Europe with exports of pork and poultry being halted
from Belgium, France, Holland and Germany (Herbert, 2001). Dutch and Belgian pig
and poultry farms were again placed under quarantine due to another dioxin scare in
January 2006. A random test on Dutch pork revealed the meat as being tainted with the
chemical, forcing the Belgian and Dutch authorities to place restrictions on 307 and 275
pig/poultry farms (Smith, 2006). With the source of the dioxin linked to feed
ingredients, restrictions were later lifted in February 2006. No pig/poultry meat was
recalled and only South Korea banned the import of pork as a result of the scare (Judge,
2006). In 2004, another dioxin contamination and PCB scare was identified in Scottish
farmed salmon. Here, American academics published research which benchmarked
residue levels of farmed salmon against EPA standards and found significantly higher
levels of dieldrin, lindane, dioxins and PCBs than found in wild salmon, all of which
could potentially trigger cancer in humans (MacLeod, 2004; Lang, 2004). Prior to this,
the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that children’s consumption of
farmed salmon should be limited as toxins in the animal feed could potentially damage
children’s brains (Fracassini, 2001). Scottish Quality Salmon (a trade organisation
which represents approximately 75 per cent of Scotland’s salmon producers) disagreed
with the US findings and argued that contamination levels fell within the levels set by
the WHO and the European Commission (Purvis, 2004). Despite reports of an increased
risk from pollutants (Harper and Le Beau, 2003) regarding farmed fish consumption
across Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2005) advised consumers
to continue eating two portions of oily fish per week. This perpetuated a balanced
approach to food advice, which accommodated both a contaminant-based risk
assessment and healthy eating priorities.
Another contaminant-related “food scare” recently experienced and currently
ongoing throughout the European food chain is the Sudan 1 incident (as at January
2006). Due to its recent occurrence, no relevant academic or scientific literature as yet
exists. Illegal presence of the dye Sudan 1 in foods was reported initially in May, 2003.
The origin of contaminated processed products has in the main occurred within the
EU, but the primary origin is perceived to be via the use of contaminated raw products
from outside the EU, for example, India, Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt (EFSA, 2005). In
the UK, more than 400 products were removed from supermarket shelves and more
BFJ
109,1
52
than 300 food producers were believed to be involved (Mowbray, 2005). The UK-based
company Premier Foods is largely blamed by the food industry after a carcinogenic
ingredient within Worcester sauce was identified in approximately 580 products
(Balchin and McLelland, 2005). Since 2003, all batches of chilli powder imported into
Europe have been required to be tested for Sudan 1. However, significant doubts have
been raised as to the efficacy of the testing and certification regimes adopted by the
food-manufacturing sector (Watson, 2005). This doubt may be warranted as the
affected batch in question was supplied in 2002 and stockpiles of affected product may
still be in circulation (Mowbray, 2005). A Dutch laboratory (Euroma) identified Para
Red, another dye believed to be structurally similar to Sudan 1 (i.e. similar genotoxic
and carcinogenic effects), in General Mill’s “Old El Paso” brand (Barnes, 2005b). Up to
May, 2005, 69 products containing traces of Para Red had been recalled in Europe
(Whitworth and Harrington, 2005).
Policy measures for dealing with illegal contaminants appear to differ widely across
Europe. For example, the UK’s FSA operates a zero-tolerance policy to illegal dyes in
comparison to the Dutch authorities that calculate an individual risk assessment for
each offence (Barnes, 2005b). Moreover, differences were identified between each
European country’s approach to Sudan 1, with the UK, Sweden, Denmark and France
adopting public recalls of products, while The Netherlands, Germany and Spain chose
trade withdrawals, thus minimising publicity (Barnes, 2005a). The EFSA’s (2005, p. 1)
response having conducted a review of a number of illegal dyes found in foodstuffs
throughout the EU concluded that there was insufficient data “to perform a full risk
assessment”. EFSA is currently working towards EU-state harmonisation of risk
assessment and testing methodologies.
Animal disease related scares – BSE, nvCJD, foot & mouth disease, avian influenza
The main animal disease-related food scare across Europe remains BSE. However, it is
also observed that some epizootic-related incidents (i.e. widespread disease in
populations of animals rather than humans) such as foot and mouth disease (FMD) and
avian influenza have caused significant food scare-type reactions to food commodities
from consumers. Scientifically speaking, FMD and avian influenza pose no known risk
to human health (Lowe, 2001; Hickman, 2005), but their inclusion here is arguably
necessary given the declining buying behaviour of European consumers[2] in response
to such events (MLC, 2001; TNS, 2001, 2005; Corbett, 2005; Ross, 2005).
As highlighted previously, BSE was not the first food scare to affect food safety on a
European scale, but it is commonly regarded as the “trigger” for the reform of existing
legislation and the establishing of new regulatory institutions across Europe (Millstone
and van Zwanenberg, 2003; Ansell and Vogel, 2005). BSE first appeared in the UK in
November 1986. It is a progressive and fatal neurological disorder that mainly affects
adult cattle and has an incubation period averaging between four and five years
(Palmer, 1996; Lien and Nerlich, 2004). Subsequently, 168,000 UK cases were confirmed
between November 1986 and May 1996, affecting 35,042 farms (European Commission,
2000a; Shears et al., 2001; Nestle, 2004). Its impact was felt mainly in the dairy sector,
affecting 60 per cent of dairy herds compared to only 15 per cent of beef herds (Palmer,
1996). In 1996, an expert committee of scientists announced that a human variant of a
disease, identified as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) could be linked to BSE in cattle
(Shears et al., 2001; Lindgreen, 2003). However, a relatively low number of individuals
European food
scares
53
are currently reported as being directly affected by nvCJD (Harvey et al., 2001;
Van Zwanenberg and Millstone, 2003). Various explanations have been provided as to
the cause of the disease. For example, the use of animal feed prepared from other
ruminants and the reduction of temperatures during feedstuff preparation, thus
allowing the prions responsible for causing BSE to transfer from contaminated
carcasses to healthy cows (Loader and Hobbs, 1996; Pennington, 2003; Schro?der, 2003;
Lien and Nerlich, 2004). Indeed, this practice significantly contributed to the
European-wide spread of BSE in cattle (Carter and Huie, 2004). Table II illustrates a
comparative viewpoint relating to the number of BSE cases identified across Europe.
Although Finland and Greece have reported only one BSE case to date, Cyprus, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta (i.e. all of which joined the EU in 2004), Norway and Sweden are the
only countries not to have confirmed cases of BSE (HetNet, 2006). Due to limited
surveillance/reporting systems, information from EU countries set to join the EU in
2007/08 (i.e. Bulgaria, Romania) is not yet available.
Table II shows that considerably more cases of BSE have been confirmed in the UK
compared to other European countries. Nonetheless, given the European-wide
incidences of BSE cases, numerous policy and legal initiatives were implemented both
at UK and EU level (Hobbs et al., 2002). In July 1988, the UK government banned the
use of ruminant proteins in cattle feed and in November 1989 banned the use of brain,
spinal cord, spleen and intestines (i.e. specified risk material) from cattle in foods for
human consumption. Consequently, the European Commission introduced a ban on the
export of bovine animals, semen/embryos, mammalian meat and bone-meal and
beef/beef products from the UK. In 1996, the UK government introduced a slaughter
programme for all cattle aged over 30 months (OTMS), to keep meat from older cattle
out of the food chain. This accounted for the removal of over 1.2 million cattle in the
first year of the scheme (McDonald and Roberts, 1998). The European Commission put
similar control measures in place. This included higher processing standards for the
treatment of animal waste in 1997 and implementation of surveillance measures for the
Confirmed BSE cases 1995 1996 1997 2000 2003 2004 2005 Total since 1987
UK 14,562 8,149 4,393 1,333 611 398 184 182,583
Belgium 0 0 1 9 15 11 2 131
France 3 12 6 162 137 54 28 974
Ireland (Rep.) 16 74 80 152 182 126 61 1,541
Northern Ireland 170 81 28 76 62 34 16 2,136
Portugal 15 31 30 136 133 92 33 985
Germany 0 0 2a 7 54 65 30 393
Italy 0 0 0 0 31 7 8 134
Spain 0 0 0 2 167 137 75 609
Switzerland 68 45 38 33 21 3 3 459
Denmark 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 15
The Netherlands 0 0 2 1 19 6 3 80
Czech Republic – – – – 4 7 8 23
Poland – – – – 5 11 17 37
Slavakia – – – – 2 7 1 20
Notes: aImported animal; – Limited surveillance information
Sources: Adapted from Defra (2006); HetNet (2006)
Table II.
The number of confirmed
BSE cases across Europe
BFJ
109,1
54
detection and control of BSE in 1998 (Food Law Monthly, 2001). By the end of 1998, the
BSE crisis had subsided in the UK (Watson, 2003). The OTMS scheme was lifted by the
UK government in November 2005 and older cattle entering the food chain now
undergo a BSE positive release testing regime (SEERAD, 2005). However, a statutory
ban is now in place on cattle born or reared in the UK before 1996, from entering the
food chain.
FMD is a highly contagious viral disease of cloven-hoofed animals (e.g. cattle, pigs,
sheep). Between 2000-2001, European cases of FMD had been identified in Turkey,
Greece, Bulgaria, France, The Netherlands, the UK and Ireland. The Pirbright
Laboratory traced the source of these outbreaks to a PanAsia outbreak in northern
India in 1990 (Crace, 2001). One of the largest European outbreaks took place in the UK,
resulting in the slaughter of over 10 million animals and a total cost of £4 billion
(Maxwell, 2002). The source of the outbreak and the scale of infected animals was
strongly linked to imported produce and production-related practices respectively
(Alston and McDougal, 2001; Nestle, 2004). As many countries prohibited the export of
European meat, a number of policy measures (e.g. killing of infected animals and
animals which came in contact with sick animals; quarantine of communities living in
the vicinity of affected animals), were introduced at EU level to control the disease.
Pennington (2003) criticised the UK governments’ role in managing and controlling the
disease and claimed that as in the case of BSE, specialist scientists were excluded from
the policy-making process. In comparison to Holland’s FMD outbreak, which was
declared over in 35 days, the UK regained its disease-free status in January 2002, (Lien
and Nerlich, 2004). To maintain this status, the EU has recently tightened restrictions
and banned beef imports on beef imports from Brazil and Argentina respectively
(Porter, 2006).
One of the most recent animal disease-related issues currently affecting the global
poultry industry is the highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak. This epidemic has
been spreading since 1997 when the virus first appeared in Hong Kong. Two years
later, the virus reappeared in South Korea and subsequently spread to eight eastern
Asian countries (Lean and Carrell, 2005). From north-western China, infected birds
followed their migratory route across Siberia. Consequently, in the autumn of 2005,
H5N1 appeared on the borders of Europe in Romania, Turkey and Croatia (Nicoll,
2005). H5N1 has been transmitted from birds to humans, but only in isolated cases
involving occupations who have had direct contact with birds (e.g. poultry farmers,
abattoir workers, vets). To date, 174 human cases have been identified in Cambodia,
Indonesia, China, Turkey, Thailand and Vietnam, of which 93 were fatal (WHO, 2006).
As the potential spread of the H5N1 virus became more apparent, the EU implemented
an import ban in 2005 on live birds, meat and eggs from outside countries.
Additionally, the European Commission implemented legislation (2005/745/EC) to
restrict the keeping of poultry outdoors if judged to be at risk from avian influenza as
well as stipulating that if in the case of an outbreak, all infected animals must be
destroyed and the farms quarantined (RTD, 2006). As a precautionary measure to
protect poultry from migratory birds flying in from the Russian Federation, where
cases had been identified, government officials in The Netherlands ordered poultry
producers to keep all birds inside (The Grocer, 2005). Despite these control measures,
13 EU countries (Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, the UK, France, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Greece, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic and Germany) have now detected avian
European food
scares
55
influenza type H5 in wild birds to date (Eurosurveillance, 2006). In Germany, a dead cat
also tested positive for the H5N1 virus. As a result of both media attention and
confirmed outbreaks throughout Europe, the Dutch poultry sector has reported a 20
per cent decrease in turnover and the European Egg, Poultry & Game Association has
reported a 10 per cent fall in sales (Corbett, 2005). In comparison to the UK where a
decline in poultry consumption has been minimal, France and Italy have witnessed a
20 per cent and 30-40 per cent decline in poultry consumption respectively (IGD, 2006).
Due to the reoccurrence of H5N1 outbreaks in some affected countries (e.g. Romania), it
is vital that European-wide surveillance and testing programmes for wild/domestic
birds continue on a harmonised basis over the next few years.
Food scares: implications for EU food policy
In view of the societal impact and recurring nature of these food crises, it is no surprise
that since the 1980s, food safety has become an issue of intense public concern.
Moreover, food safety is now viewed by many as not just a scientific matter but also a
“highly political issue” (Smith, 1991; Pennington, 2003, p. 25; Lien and Nerlich, 2004, p.
1; Nestle, 2004, p. 1). Consequently, throughout the latter half of the 1990s, food safety
was notably prominent on the political agenda in the UK, throughout Europe (Atkins
and Bowler, 2001).
A key response to the aforementioned European food scares has been the creation of
institutions responsible for the implementation and verification of food standards
(Renard, 2005). Indeed, safety and transparency formed the basis for the creation of
regulatory systems for food as early as the nineteenth century (Lien and Nerlich, 2004).
In almost every EU country, government motivations for the creation of such agencies
are attributed to declining consumer trust (Poppe and Kjaernes, 2003; Berg et al., 2005).
For example, after the Belgian dioxin food scare in 1999, a Federal Agency for the
Security of the Food Chain (AFSCA) was created in Belgium and a new Agency called
Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Ailments (AFSSA) was created in France
(Ansell and Vogel, 1999). In the case of the UK, Sassatelli and Scott (2001, p. 220) refer
to British consumers as possessing “disembedded trust” (i.e. a universalistic and
institutional-based distrust) as opposed to “traditional” and “localised” distrust
regimes commonly found in Italy and Austria. Consequently, the UK established The
Food Standards Agency (FSA) in 2000, an agency independent of government with its
main initial remit being for food safety (Shears et al., 2001). No new regulatory
institution was established in Germany, but one reaction of policy makers to the
emergence of BSE was the re-naming of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry
to the “Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture” in 2001 (Ansell
and Vogel, 2005). Although previously criticised for its “ad hoc approach to the
formulation of a European food policy” (Knowles, 2001, p. 180), the European
Commission also identified food safety as a key policy priority in response to the BSE
crisis (European Commission, 2000b), and in 2003 the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) was created with a clear focus on the consumer as opposed to the
product/market, though not in the areas of nutrition and diet.
Overall, the aforementioned range of food scares presents significant criticisms and
challenges for EU Food Policy. The key response since 1990 is marked by the
convergence of two projects: the establishment of EU food policy and the development
of a EU Consumer policy. Before 1995, the Commission services already imagined the
BFJ
109,1
56
preparation of a general horizontal food law directive (Ottaway, 1995). A consumer
policy was also supported to enhance consumer confidence in cross-border trade. But
there was no clear link between these intentions. In 1997, the main responsibilities for
food issues were transferred to a Directorate General for the protection of consumers
that did not exist just a few years before (see EUROPA, 1999).
Food policy development: an example of the influence of food scares
The following example helps illustrate this bargaining between the EU institutions: the
Commission; Parliament; the Council of Ministers, and their relationship with the
evolution of a consumerist food policy. On 2 October, 1996 the Commission submitted
two proposals for regulations, one establishing a system for the identification and
registration of bovine animals and the other regarding the labelling of beef and beef
products. Those two proposals were based on Article 43 of the EC Treaty. Article 43
constitutes the legal basis for all rules concerning the production and marketing of
agricultural products such as “beef” listed in Annex II of the Treaty and which
contributes to the implementation of the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP). Four months later, the proposals were debated in a plenary session of the
European Parliament. After examination, the European Parliament adopted an
amendment designed to substitute Article 100a for Article 43. Article 100a is the legal
basis when the aim and content of a regulation is the protection of public health or the
consumer protection. This substitution would have been a matter of procedure if it did
not imply a change of decision procedure. By changing article 43 into article 100a the
proposals were placed under the “co-decision procedure” instead of the “consultation
procedure”. In the co-decision procedure the European Parliament co-decides with the
Council while in the consultation procedure the Council decides and the European
Parliament opinion is only consultative.
The Commission accepted some of the European Parliament amendments and
merged the two proposals in one single amended proposal on the basis of Article 100a
(co-decision). But a few months later, the Council re-amended the legal basis in favour
of Article 43 (consultation) and in April 1997 unanimously adopted the regulation. The
Commission brought an action for the annulment of the regulation before the European
Court of Justice. The justification of the Commission was the following: although beef
is listed in Annex II of the Treaty and consequently part of a common organisation of
the market, the main aim of the regulation is not an objective of agricultural policy but
an aim of protection of human health, especially in the background of the BSE crisis.
The Commission recognised that “labelling” had no direct link with health protection,
but as reported in the European Court report, claimed that “in the present case” (i.e.
after BSE crisis), the measures taken were intended solely to provide consumers with
information on the origin of the product and therefore certain characteristics of the
production to assure that the product posed no risk to their health. The Commission
insisted that the particular context was responsible for this regulation and therefore it
should have been based on 100a.
The European Parliament in supporting the Commission’s request went further,
establishing a link between labelling and consumer health that the Commission had
not dared to make. For the European Parliament, the “principal, if not sole, aim was to
create an uninterrupted chain which enables the consumer to check each individual
stage of the process from the origin to consumption”. For its defence, the Council
European food
scares
57
protested that the voluntary regulation did not primarily seek to protect human health
but rather aimed to restore consumer confidence in both the market and its products in
order to encourage stability in a market thrown into crisis by BSE. The protection of
human and animal health was a “secondary” aim of the Regulation. This justified why,
for the Council, it was rightly based on Article 43 and not on Article 100a. The Court of
Justice gave reason to the Commission and concluded that the regulation should have
been placed under both articles, and not just on Article 43, and annulled the Council
Regulation (EC) No 820/97 but preserved its effects until new rules were established on
the subject.
What this example demonstrates is that at a certain point of EU history there was
no other possibility but to prioritise objectives previously indiscernible: consumer or
market. If in the official discourse “consumer interests” had always been considered
compatible with producer interests in the single market, this was not the case anymore.
At the time of the hearing before the European Court of Justice, all parties finally
agreed that the regulation should have been based on both Articles 43 and 100a. One
wonders why at the time of the making of regulation this option was not retained and
no consensual position emerged. By examining the amendments of the first
parliamentary reading session, it appears that the most contentious issues between the
institutions were whether or not labelling should be made optional or compulsory and
whether or not the name of the country had to be reported in the label addressed to the
final consumer.
EU policy: market- or consumer-driven?
Interestingly, this debate between market and consumer strikes at the heart of the
European Union. In a single European market where all goods are free to circulate, the
Commission did at first not see any justification to oblige producers to label beef with
the name of country of origin, therefore it supported a “EU label”, and based its first
version of the proposal on Article 43. The Council also shared this position and
supported an optional rather than compulsory system of country identification. The
European Parliament Committee integrated the position as a market-oriented strategy
to allow BSE-affected countries to hide behind anonymous labels, while at the same
time “BSE free” countries (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay)
would be given a market advantage by putting their name on their beef products. For
the European Parliament, this unfair option based on the ignorance of the consumer
was unacceptable. The European Parliament went even further, asking for the
extension of labelling to processed goods containing beef and beef products “within
one year of the entry into force of the regulation”. The Commission proposed a
transitory period where the system would be optional until it would become
compulsory.
To conclude this example, the Council interrupted the process of co-decision in
changing the basis of the Treaty, voted on its own a regulation that retained the
optional labelling with name of country until 2000 when the system was set to become
compulsory. By interrupting the procedure, the Council did not succeed in avoiding the
establishment of a compulsory system of identification, only to postpone it. The
Council lost the judgment and had to pay the costs of the court procedure. But the
regulation was not withdrawn and was left in place for implementation from 2000.
BFJ
109,1
58
Conclusions and avenues of future research
The European Parliament is now prioritising the consumer at the economic heart of the
single market. Undoubtedly, BSE has to some extent been both pedagogic and
cathartic and “demonstrates the full panoply of the Parliament’s post-Maastricht
powers” (Westlake, 1997). It also provided the European Parliament with the
opportunity to affirm its role as defender of the consumer, fully using its new-found
Maastricht Treaty powers to investigate “alleged contraventions and
maladministration” in relation to BSE. Whatever the economic and administrative
difficulties that existed in setting up a reliable compulsory labelling system, the
European Parliament supported it and proposed the enlargement of the system to label
beef derived food products. This introduced into the debate the threat of enlargement
to all meat products and not just beef products. The European Parliament sent a clear
signal to the two other main actors of regulation (i.e. European Commission, European
Council) that from then on (1997) it will closely monitor decisions taken in the
agriculture sector. In the European Parliament, traceability and labelling became tools
for consumer control over all steps of the food chain. Indeed, the Council Regulation
(EC) No 820/97 was implemented to “enable the consumer to check each individual
stage of the process from the origin to consumption”). Whatever the practicability of
such a statement, it seems unprecedented that at the level of decision making, a
regulation is envisaged to be a means of direct control by consumers on “economic
actors”.
Throughout the EU, and in part as a direct result of the ongoing impact of food
scares upon consumer opinions[3], food can no longer be treated merely as a market
commodity. The complexity of this situation has led to the need for research into the
maximisation of consumer satisfaction by reinsuring their individual “right to choose”.
Emphasis to date has been on flexible and general solutions of which improved
labelling was one. Giving consumers the right to choose, if exercised presents them
with responsibility for the implications of that choice, However, within the context of
an increasingly complex food chain and a growing asymmetry of information on the
food label between producers and consumers, this “right” may not significantly
enhance choice benefits. Such a concern is compounded if either national or EU
governmental bodies fail to adequately communicate the risk involved and/or if the
consumer does not fully understand the concept of risk in relation to food.
Factors such as the intensification of primary food production, increased
consumption of ready-meals in food service and in the home, along with rising
incidences of environmental pollution, indicate in the eyes of some commentators that
further “food scares” are inevitable (Beardsworth, 1990; Scythe, 2005). Consequently,
this gives rise to new demands for complete and proactive surveillance reporting
systems across Europe on all aspects of disease (i.e. bacterial, contaminants, zoonotic,
epizootic). More importantly, dissemination of such information is crucial for European
consumers to make informed food purchase choices. Given European consumers’
negative perceptions of epizootic-related scares such as FMD and avian flu, future
research may wish to investigate the impact of such scares upon consumer perceptions
and buying behaviour. Moreover, explicit investigations into the aforementioned food
scares and their cumulative impact on food purchase behaviour could help further
understanding of consumer responses to food scares and consequently how EU policy
may be framed to improve choice for consumers.
European food
scares
59
Notes
1. MAFF has now been re-structured and is now known as the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). MAFF’s original remit for food safety was passed to the FSA
in 2000. Note that references to MAFF and Defra will be used interchangeably depending on
the year of publication.
2. The impact of food scares upon European consumers and their purchase/consumption
behaviours is currently the main focus of another paper currently in progress by the authors.
3. Consumer opinions are regularly sought both at national and EU level by government
bodies. This activity is usually carried out by a third party, namely international market
research agencies such as Taylor Nelson Sofres.
References
Alston, B. and McDougal, T. (2001), “Government doing nothing to stop illegal meat imports”,
Farmer’s Guardian, 24 August.
Ansell, C. and Vogel, D. (Eds) (1999), European Food Safety Regulation: The Politics of Contested
Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge. MA.
Ansell, C. and Vogel, D. (2005), “The contested governance of European food safety”, working
paper 2005-38. University of California. Berkeley, CA.
Assael, H. (2004), Consumer Behavior: A Strategic Approach, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
Atkins, P. and Bowler, I. (2001), Food in Society: Economy, Culture, Geography, Arnold, London.
Balchin, A. and McLelland, F. (2005), “Sudan 1 sparks new probe”, The Grocer., 2 April.
Barnes, R. (2005a), “No bid to hush up food scares”, The Grocer, 2 April.
Barnes, R. (2005b), “Para Red sparks food scare”, The Grocer, 30 April.
Beardsworth, A.D. (1990), “Trans-science and moral panic: understanding food scares”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 11-16.
Berg, L., Kjaernes, U., Ganskau, E., Minina, V., Voltchkova, L., Halkier, B. and Holm, L. (2005),
“Trust in food safety in Russia, Denmark and Norway”, European Societies, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 103-29.
Bernauer, T. and Caduff, L. (2004), “European food safety: multilevel governance,
re-nationalisation, or centralisation?”, working paper 2-2004, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Zurich.
Berry, H. andMcEachern,M.G. (2005), “Informing ethical consumers”, in Harrison, R., Newholm, T.
and Shaw, D.S. (Eds), The Ethical Consumer, Ch. 5, Sage Publications, London.
Brett, M. (1999), “Botulism in the UK”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Brimer, L. (2004), “Chemical food safety, public awareness and risk communication”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
Campbell, H. and Fitzgerald, R. (2001), “Food scares and GM: ambivalent technologies, fear and
the politics of nostalgia”, Proceedings from ISA Conference, Fitzwilliam College, University
of Cambridge, Cambridge, July.
Carter, C.A. and Huie, J. (2004), “Market effects of searching for mad cows”, Agricultural and
Resource Economics Update, Vol. 8 No. 1.
CEE (2005), “EU scientists call for Listeria alert network for food”, available at: www.
cee-foodindustry.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=64185 (accessed 7 December, 2005).
BFJ
109,1
60
(The) Co-op (2001), “UK: Co-op bans suspect pesticides and calls for UK Organics Action Plan”,
available at: http://just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=36518&dm=yes (accessed 7 March
2001).
Cooter, R. and Fulton, R. (2001), “Food matters: food safety research in the UK public sector,
1917-1990”, Food Industry Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 251-61.
Corbett, D. (2005), “Bird flu makes Germans lose appetite for poultry”, available at: www.
dw-world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,1759244.html (accessed 7 December 2005).
Crace, J. (2001), “Going up in smoke”, The Guardian, 20 March, pp. 50-4.
Crespo, P.S., Herna´ndez, G., Echei´ta, A., Torres, A., Ordo´nez, P. and Aladuena, A. (2005),
“Surveillance of foodborne disease outbreaks associated with consumption of eggs and
egg products”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 Nos 4-6, pp. 138-40.
Crook, P. (2000), “Outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium DT204b infection in Europe, 2000:
update”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 4 No. 51, p. 3.
De Boer, J., Willemsen, F. and Aiking, H. (2003), Food Safety, Communication and Behaviour:
An Analysis of Four Recent Incidents, Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken, Amsterdam.
De Valk, H. (2000), “Outbreak of Listeriosis linked to the consumption of pork tongue in jelly in
France”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 4 No. 9, p. 1.
De Valk, H., Jacquet, C., Goulet, V., Vaillant, V., Perra, A., Simon, F., Desenclos, J.C. and Martin, P.
(2005), “Surveillance of Listeria infections in Europe”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 Nos 10-12,
pp. 251-5.
Defra (2006), The BSE Inquiry: The Report, Defra, London, available at: www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/
report/volume16/chapte10.htm (accessed 24 January 2006).
Democracy Now! (1999), “Genetically engineered products found in baby food”, available at:
www.democracynow.org/print.pl?is=03/04/07/044222 (accessed 7 December 2005).
Doorduyn, Y., de Jager, C.M., van der Zwaluw, W.K., Wannet, W.J.B., van der Ende, A.,
Spanjaard, L. and van Duynhoven, Y.T.H.P. (2006), “First results of the active surveillance
of Listeria monocytogenes infections in the Netherlands reveal higher than expected
incidence”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 4-5.
EFSA (2005), “Review of the toxicology of a number of dyes illegally present in food in the EU.
Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and
Materials in Contact with Food on a request from the Commission”, The EFSA Journal,
Vol. 263, pp. 1-71.
EFSA (2006), “Trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and antimicrobial resistance in
the EU in 2004”, The EFSA Journal, Vol. 310.
Eley, A. (1997), “Escherichia coli 0157: an increasingly significant food-poisoning pathogen”,
Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 3, May/June, pp. 96-100.
Euromonitor (2003), “Germany: consumer and industry concerns over Acrylamide – 28 January,
2003”, available at: www.euromonitor.com/article.asp?id=214&print=true (accessed
7 December 2005).
EUROPA (1999), Consumer Policy in the European Community – An Overview, European
Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2000a), Preliminary Opinion on the Geographical Risk of BSE (GBR), 25
May, European Commission Scientific Steering Committee, Brussels.
European Commission (2000b), White Paper (5761/00), January, European Commission,
Brussels.
European food
scares
61
Eurosurveillance (2006), “Avian influenza H5N1 outbreaks in Romanian and Danish poultry and
large H5N1 cluster in an Indonesian family”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 1195, pp. 1-2.
Fernandes, T., van Duynhoven, Y.T.H.P., de Jager, C.M., Wannet, W.J.B. and van Pelt, W. (2000),
“Outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis PT4b infection in The Netherlands”, Eurosurveillance,
Vol. 4 No. 51, p. 2.
Fife-Schaw, C. and Rowe, G. (2000), “Extending the application of the psychometric approach for
assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations”, Journal of
Risk Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 167-79.
Fisher, I.S.T. and Gill, O.N. (2001), “International surveillance networks and principles of
collaboration”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-3.
Fitzgerald, R. and Campbell, H. (2001), “Food scares and GM: movement on the nature/culture
fault line”, Proceedings of Food Safety & Security Symposium, Sydney, October.
Food Law Monthly (2001), “EU Action on BSE”, Vol. 20 No. 2.
Fracassini, C. (2001), “The King of Fish Stamped 2nd Class Postage”, Scotland on Sunday, 24
June.
Frewer, L. (1999), “Public perception of genetically modified food in Europe”, Journal of
Commercial Biotechnology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 108-15.
Frewer, L.J., Raats, M.M. and Shepherd, R. (1993), “Modelling the media: the transmission of risk
information in the British quality press”, IMA Journal of Mathematics Applied in Business
& Industry, Vol. 5, pp. 235-47.
Friedberg, S. (2004), French Beans & Food Scares: Culture & Commerce in an Anxious Age,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
FSA (2001), “Olive-pomace oil: your questions answered”, available at: www.food.gov.uk/
multimedia/faq/olivepomoilqa/?view=printerfriendly (accessed 7 December 2005).
FSA (2004), “Salmonella in eggs down, survey shows”, available at: www.food.gov.uk/news/
newsarchive/2004/mar/salmonellaeggnews/view=printerfriendly (accessed 22 June 2004).
FSA (2006a), “Update on Cadbury’s recall”, available at: www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/
2006/jun/cadbury (accessed 4 July 2006).
FSA (2006b), “Agency publishes survey into levels of benzene in soft drinks in the UK”, available
at: www.food.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/2006/march/benzenesurveypress (accessed
31 March 2006).
Fumento, M. (1999), “Alar revisited: greens still trying to salvage their alar-stained reputation”,
available at: www.fumento.com/hudsonalar.html (accessed 7 December 2005).
Gillespie, I. and Elson, R. (2005), “Successful reduction of human Salmonella Enteritidis infection
in England and Wales”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 2-6.
Gilsdorf, A., Jansen, A., Alpers, K., Dieckmann, H., van Treeck, U., Hauri, A.M., Fell, G.,
Littmann, M., Rautenberg, P., Prager, R., Rabsc, W., Roggentin, P., Schroeter, A., Miko, A.,
Bartelt, E., Bra¨unig, J. and Ammon, A. (2005), “A nationwide outbreak of Salmonella
Bovis-morbificans PT24, Germany, December 2004-March 2005”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 1-2.
(The) Grocer (2005), “Dutch breath of fresh air”, 8 October.
(The) Grocer (2006), “FSA: benzene? Relax”, 8 April.
Hadjichristodolou, C., Nikolakopoulou, E., Karabinis, K., Karakou, E., Markoglannakis, A.,
Panoulis, C., Lampri, M. and Tassios, P. (1999), “Outbreak of Salmonella Gastroenteritis
among attendees of a restaurant opening in Greece, June 1998”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 4
No. 6, pp. 72-5.
BFJ
109,1
62
Harper, C.L. and Le Beau, B.F. (2003), Food, Society and Environment, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Harvey, J., Erdos, G., Challinor, S., Drew, S., Taylor, S., Ash, R., Ward, C., Gibson, C., Scarr, F.,
Hinde, A. and Moffat, C. (2001), “The relationship between attitudes, demographic factors
and perceived consumption of meats and other proteins in relation to the BSE crisis:
a regional study in the UK”, Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 181-97.
Hays, C.L. (1999), “Concern about Coke products spreads to Spain and Germany”, New York
Times, 19 June.
Herbert, D. (2001), “Food fright mounts in Europe”, available at: www.archives.cnn.com/2001/
WORLD/europe/02/27/food.crises (accessed 7 December 2005).
HetNet (2006), “BSE in Europe”, available at: http://home.hetnet.nl/,mad.cow/BSE12005a.htm
(accessed 24 January 2006).
Hickman, M. (2005), “Virus fears hitting poultry sales says Sainsbury’s”, The Independent, 19
October.
Hobbs, J.E., Fearne, A. and Spriggs, J. (2002), “Incentive structures for food safety and quality
assurance: an international comparison”, Food Control, Vol. 13, pp. 77-81.
Hoskins, R. (1999), How Green Are our Apples? A Look at the Environmental and Social Effects of
Apple Production, The SAFE Alliance, London.
Huang, C.L. (1993), “Simultaneous equation model for estimating consumer risk perceptions,
attitudes and willingness to pay for residue-free produce”, Journal of Consumer Affairs,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 377-96.
Humphrey, T. (2006), “Cadbury’s testing out of date”, available at: www.newsvote.bbc.co.uk/
mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5145380.stm (accessed 5 July 2006).
IFST (1995), Campylobacteriosis – IFST Position Paper, Institute of Food Science and Technology,
London.
IGD (2006), “Shoppers’ response to bird flu”, available at: www.igd.com/CIR.asp?menuid=
37&cirid=1874 (accessed 15 February 2006).
Isakbaeva, E., Lindstedt, B.A., Schimmer, B., Vardund, T., Stavnes, T.L., Hauge, K., Gondrosen, B.,
Blystad, H., Kløvstad, H., Aavitsland, P., Nyga°rd, K. and Kapperud, G. (2005), “Salmonella
Typhimurium DT104 outbreak linked to imported minced beef, Norway, October-November
2005”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 Nos 10-12, pp. 272-3.
Jensen, C., Ethelberg, S., Gervelmeyer, A., Nielsen, E.M., Olsen, K.E.P. and Mølbak, K. (2006),
“First general outbreak of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia Coli 0157 in Denmark”,
Eurosurveillance, Vol. 11 Nos 1-3, pp. 55-8.
Jime´nez, M., Soler, P., Venanzi, J.D., Cante´, P., Varela, C. and Marti´nez-Navarro, F. (2005),
“An outbreak of Campylobacter Jejuni Enteritis in a school of Madrid, Spain”,
Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 Nos 4-6, pp. 118-21.
Johnson, A. (2005), “Outpatient consumption of antibiotics is linked to antibiotic resistance in
Europe: results from the European surveillance of antimicrobial consumption”,
Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 Nos 1-3, pp. 62-3.
Judge, H. (2006), “Restrictions lifted after Netherlands scare”, The Grocer, February.
Kaiser, R. and Coulombier, D. (2006), “Different approaches to gathering epidemic intelligence in
Europe”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-3.
Kivi, M., van Pelt, W., Notermans, D., van de Glessen, A., Wannet, W. and Bosman, A. (2005),
“Large outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium DT104, The Netherlands,
September-November 2005”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 1-4.
European food
scares
63
Knowles, T. (2001), “Trends in food safety: implications for European hotels”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 176-82.
Lacey, R. (1989), “Salmonella Enteritidis and eggs: the position at the end of 1988”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 5-8.
Lacey, R. (1992), “Scares and the British food system: problems and policies in relation to
food-related health issues”, British Food Journal, Vol. 94 No. 7, pp. 26-31.
Lang, T. (2004), “The Saturday essay”, The Grocer, 28 February.
Lang, T. and Rayner, G. (2001), Why Health Is the Key to the Future of Food and Farming, Sage
Publications, London.
Lean, G. and Carrell, S. (2005), “Bird flu: why weren’t we warned? How did it get here? How
scared should you be?”, The Independent, 16 October.
Lenglet, A. (2005), “Over 2,000 cases so far in Salmonella Hadar outbreak in Spain associated
with consumption of pre-cooked chicken, July-August”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 Nos 7-9,
pp. 196-7.
Lenglet, A. and Herna´ndez-Pezzi, G. (2006), “Comparison of the European Union disease
surveillance networks’ websites”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 1-4.
Lien, M.E. and Nerlich, B. (2004), The Politics of Food, Berg, Oxford.
Lindgreen, A. (2003), “Trust as a valuable strategic variable in the food industry”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 105 No. 6, pp. 310-27.
Loader, R. and Hobbs, J.E. (1996), “The hidden costs and benefits of BSE”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 98 No. 11, pp. 26-35.
Lowe, R. (2001), “Meat: is it time to go over the top?”, The Grocer, 19 May.
Luijk, R., Schalk, S. and Muilerman, H. (2000), Have We Lost Our Minds? Neurotoxin Residues
Harmful to the Developing Brains of Our Children, Consumentenbond ans Sticting Natuur
en Milieu, The Netherlands.
McDonald, S. and Roberts, D. (1998), “The economy-wide effects of the BSE crisis: a CGE
analysis”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 458-71.
MacLeod, M. (2004), “Off the hook”, Scotland on Sunday, 11 January.
Martinez, A., Oliva, J.M., Panella, E., Hernandez-Pezzi, G. and Soler, P. (2001), “Outbreak of E. coli
0157:H7 infection in Spain”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 1.
Maxwell, F. (2002), “After the plague”, The Scotsman, 20 February.
Mazick, A., Ethelberg, S., Nielsen, E.M., Mølbak, K. and Lisby, M. (2006), “An outbreak of
Campylobacter Jejuni associated with consumption of chicken, Copenhagen, 2005”,
Eurosurveillance, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 1-5.
Mazzocchi, M. (2004), “Modelling consumer reaction to multiple food scares”, Proceedings from
the 78th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, Imperial College.
London, April.
Meikle, J. (2004), “Danger warning after increase in drug residues found in eggs”, The Guardian,
14 April.
Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., Ritson, C. and Frewer, L.J. (2004), “Public worry
about specific food safety issues”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Millstone, E. and van Zwanenberg, P. (2003), “Food and agricultural biotechnology policy: how
much autonomy can developing countries exercise?”, in Maxwell, S. and Slater, R. (Eds),
Food Policy Old and New, Ch. 9, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
BFJ
109,1
64
Mitchell, V.W. and Greatorex, M. (1990), “Consumer perceived risk in the UK food market”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 16-22.
MLC (2001), “BSE/FMD leave legacy of soaring import levels”, The Grocer, 27 October.
Mølbak, K. (2004), “Danish programme for control of salmonella in poultry has resulted in fewer
cases in both poultry and humans”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 9 Nos 4-6, pp. 53-4.
Mowbray, S. (2005), “Sudan 1: it’s just beginning”, The Grocer, 26 February.
Nastasi, A., Mammina, C. and Salsa, L. (1999), “Outbreak of Salmonella Bongori 48:z35 –
in Sicily”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 1-2.
Nestle, M. (2004), Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology and Bioterrorism, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Nicoll, A. (2005), “Avian and pandemic influenza: five questions for 2006”, Eurosurveillance,
Vol. 10 Nos 10-12, pp. 210-11.
O’Herrmann, R.O., Warland, R.H. and Sterngold, A. (1997), “Who reacts to food safety scares?:
Examining the Alar crisis”, Agribusiness, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 511-20.
Organic Monitor (2002), “Food scare hits German organic food industry”, available at: www.
organicmonitor.com/r1006.htm (accessed 7 December 2005).
Ottaway, P.B. (1995), Harmonisation of European Food Legislation, Pearson Professional,
London.
Palmer, C.M. (1996), “A week that shook the meat industry: the effects on the UK beef industry of
the BSE crisis”, British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 11, pp. 17-25.
Panico, M.G., Primiano, F., Nappi, F. and Attena, F. (1999), “An outbreak of Salmonella
Enteritidis food poisoning from a commercially produced cheese”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 47-8.
Pennington, H. (2003), When Food Kills: BSE, E-coli and Disaster Science, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Pennington, H. (2006), “Cadbury faces meltdown in million-bar product recall”, The Grocer,
19 May.
Poppe, C. and Kjaernes, U. (2003), Trust in Food in Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Professional
Report No. 5, National Institute for Consumer Research, Oslo.
Porter, R. (2006), “Argentina FMD leads to EU ban”, The Grocer, 25 February.
Purvis, A. (2004), “Handle with care: OFM”, The Observer, February, pp. 50-4.
Renard, M.C. (2005), “Quality certification, regulation and power in fair trade”, Journal of Rural
Studies, Vol. 21, pp. 419-31.
Roosen, J.J., Lusk, L. and Fox, J.A. (2003), “Consumer demand for and attitudes toward
alternative beef labelling strategies in France, Germany and the UK”, Agribusiness, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Ross, S. (2005), “Britons shrug off bird flu scare as egg and poultry sales unaffected”,
The Scotsman, 27 October.
RTD (2006), “Living with influenza”, RTD Info Magazine on European Research, European
Commission, Brussels.
Sassatelli, R. and Scott, A. (2001), “Novel food, new markets and trust regimes”, European
Societies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 213-44.
Schro¨der, M.J.A. (2003), Food Quality and Consumer Value: Delivering Food That Satisfies,
Springer-Verlag, Germany.
Scythe, D. (2005), “Another ‘shock horror’ on the cards”, The Scottish Farmer, 5 March.
European food
scares
65
SEERAD (2005), Notification Letter, Scottish Executive for the Environment & Rural Affairs
Department, Edinburgh.
Shears, P., Zollers, F.E. and Hurd, S. (2001), “Food for thought: what mad cows have wrought
with respect to food safety regulation in the EU and UK”, British Food Journal, Vol. 103
No. 1, pp. 63-87.
Smith, M.J. (1991), “From policy community to issue network: salmonella in eggs and the new
politics of food”, Public Administration, Vol. 69, pp. 235-55.
Smith, R. (2006), “Very few Dutch farms hit by dioxin scare”, The Grocer, 4 February.
Soil Association (2004), “Egg warning”, The Scottish Farmer, 24 April, p. 5.
Sprenger, R.A. (2006), Hygiene for Management, 12th ed., Highfield Ltd, London.
Sta¨rk, K.D.C., Boyd, H.B. and Mousing, J. (2002), “Risk assessment following the hypothetical
import of dioxin-contaminated feed for pigs: an example of quantitative decision-support
under emergency conditions”, Food Control, Vol. 13, pp. 1-11.
Tansey, G. and Worsley, T. (1999), The Food System: A Guide, Earthscan Publications, London.
Therre, H. (1999), “Botulism in the European Union”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
TNS (2001), “Meat: is it time to go over the top?”, The Grocer, 19 May.
TNS (2005), “Eggs defy flu worries”, The Grocer, 3 December.
Torpdahl, M., Sørensen, G., Sandø, G., Gammelga°rd, K., Jannok, K. and Porsbo, L.J. (2006),
“A regional outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium in Denmark and identification of the
source using MVLA typing”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 1-4.
Valliant, V. (2005), “Outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 infections associated with a brand of beefburgers
in France”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 2-4.
Valliant, V., Espie`, E., Fisher, I., Hjertqvist, M., de Jong, B., Kornschober, C., Berghold, C.,
Gillespie, I., Alpers, K., Schmid, H. and Ha¨chier, H. (2005), “International outbreak of
Salmonella Stourbridge infection in Europe recognised following enter-net inquiry,
June-July 2005”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-2.
Van Zwanenberg, P. and Millstone, E. (2003), “BSE: a paradigm of policy failure”, Political
Quarterly, Vol. 74, pp. 27-38.
Vasager, J. (2006), “Chocolate may have poisoned more than forty”, The Guardian, 24 June,
pp. 50-4.
Verbeke, W. (2001), “Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after the
Belgian dioxin crisis”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 12, pp. 489-98.
Verbeke, W. and van Kenhove, P. (2002), “Impact of emotional stability and attitude on
consumption decisions under risk: the Coca-Cola crisis in Belgium”, Journal of Health
Communications, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 455-72.
Verdurme, A. and Viaene, J. (2003), “Exploring and modelling attitudes towards GM food”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 95-110.
Vos, E. (2000), “EU food safety regulation in the aftermath of the BSE crisis”, Journal of
Consumer Policy, Vol. 23, pp. 227-55.
Watson, E. (2005), “So who did test, and when?”, The Grocer, 26 February.
Watson, J. (2003), “Lifting BSE ban to unleash beef glut”, Scotland on Sunday.
Westlake, M. (1997), “Mad cows and Englishmen – the institutional consequences of the BSE
crisis”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 35, September, pp. 11-36.
Whitworth, M. and Harrington, S. (2005), “Why, what, when, where?”, The Grocer, 28 May.
WHO (2001), Food Safety Strategic Planning Meeting, World Health Organisation, Geneva.
BFJ
109,1
66
WHO (2006), “Cumulative number of confirmed human cases of avian influenza A/(H5N1)
reported to WHO”, available at: www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza_2006_02_28/
print.html (accessed 28 February 2006).
Ziese, T., Anderson, Y., de Jong, B., Lo¨fdahl, S. and Ramberg, M. (1996), “Outbreak of E coli 0157
in Sweden”, Eurosurveillance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Corresponding author
Morven G. McEachern can be contacted at: m.g.mceachern@salford.ac.uk
European food
scares
67
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
