Food Focus November 2008
New Zealand food Safety Authority
November 2008
Editorial
“It was undoubtedly the biggest food story of 2008, but when the initial reports of melamine adulteration of milk came out of China I doubt anybody really had any idea just how big it would get.”
Hard on the heels of the Olympics, the melamine scandal tainted not just milk, but China’s reputation as a food supplier. At least four babies died and thousands of other infants fell sick with kidney problems after consuming infant formula that had been laced with melamine in an alleged attempt to bulk up the original milk product. It also frightened consumers around the world.
Here in New Zealand, we knew parents would be extremely concerned so our first move was to test the full range of infant formulas on the market to reassure them (and ourselves) that we did not have a similar problem. We were relieved to discover only what we call non-detects – showing that if melamine was present it was at levels so low as to be undetectable, and certainly too low to pose any risk.
Then we found melamine in a range of sweets imported from China (called White Rabbit Creamy Candy) at levels considered to be unacceptable. Our first response was to issue a Director General’s ‘privileged statement’ advising consumers not to eat these sweets. As well, we contacted all the importers and distributors that we could find (44 at last count) to alert them, and received a tremendous response as the candy was swiftly withdrawn from sale. The media’s pick-up of the warning also helped enormously in getting the message across to consumers.
NZFSA, along with food authorities around the globe, worked to establish what level of melamine required action to be taken. We worked closely with Australia, Canada and the United States, along with the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority. As a result, we and most of these agencies set an action limit of 2.5 parts per million (ppm) in most foods, but at the limit of detection (1ppm) in infant formula.
What took me most by surprise was the ‘off the wall’ nature of the incident. Melamine, being an industrial chemical, is not something we would expect to find in milk.
We hadn’t been asking ourselves, how might people adulterate milk to make money out of it? It’s a reminder to us that we should be asking those sorts of questions. So we are starting that process now, together with other national food safety authorities.
Another thing we’ve relearned from the melamine scandal is that people can react inappropriately in such circumstances. In response to melamine being found in infant formula in China, a call went up to ban all melamine and to aim for zero levels in everything.
Melamine can be found in low levels as an unintended outcome of the manufacturing process. On its own this is not particularly harmful to adults – there haven’t been the same levels of illness reported in adults who consumed the same products – and there is clearly more to be learned.
The calls for zero levels were unrealistic and showed how important it is to maintain confidence where that is appropriate and to not frighten consumers if there is no justification for such concern.
On the plus side, I think the whole melamine issue showed that New Zealand is well-prepared for incidents of this nature and I believe we reacted quickly and appropriately. Testing was thorough, communication effectively saw distribution and consumption of the suspect products cease, and consumers were able to access all the information we had available, on our website as soon as we had it. The international cooperation between food authorities was tremendous, as was the interagency cooperation within New Zealand.
But the melamine scenario has taught us that we perhaps should be thinking more laterally about threats to our food.
Andrew McKenzie