Sondaggio utilizzo integratori alimentari

HylobatesConsultingIl team di Hylobates Consulting sta conducendo un’indagine volta a valutare l’andamento globale del mercato degli integratori alimentari in ambito sportivo.

I dati sugli utilizzi e sul mercato degli integratori alimentari per sportivi, compreso il commercio via Internet, sono scarsi. La mancanza di dati impedisce un miglioramento del settore, sia a livello di qualità, che di sicurezza e convenienza, e la sua apertura. Questa indagine è effettuata da Hylobates Consulting srl al fine di comprendere meglio questo mercato.

Ulteriori informazioni possono essere richieste via mail hylobates@hylobates.it. o telefonicamente allo 06 98939628. Ti invitiamo a rispondere a queste poche domande con attenzione per contribuire ad un miglioramento del settore.

Di seguito il link al sondaggio:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/B2SKVDH

– Hylo’s Consulting team –

Advertisements

What car safety can teach to food safety

The skills of a food safety expert, or a food risk assessor, are quite distant from those of an expert of car safety.  For cars, the risks are not of a microbial, or chemical, nature as those that worry food safety types.

Nevertheless, as in the case of nuclear safety, a recent article in The Economist on car safety provides some thought-provoking inspiration.

The first aspect of interest is the race to build more safety into cars. The article cites Volvo’s self-driving V40 car, and Nissan’s future car: the new Nissan will anticipate driver’s next moves. The incentive is clear. As the article’s author puts it “in the short term, novel safety devices can help carmakers squeeze more profit out of buyers.”

A market-based approach to safety has also been advocated for foods. Food businesses offer us organic, fat-free, socially responsible, premium, PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) foods; why can’t they offer us also food which is safer than the competition?  There is of course a legal catch, at least in the EU; you cannot claim that a food has characteristics that all similar food products have. Since all food has to be safe by law (if it not safe, it cannot stay on the market), claiming your food product is safe (or safer) is akin claiming that your food is superior when it merely has characteristics that all food has, or needs to have. So marketing food safety should be prohibited. Surely, though, determined marketers, clever consultants and smart lawyers can get around the prohibition.

But there is a more serious catch, which the article explains in reference to safety devices:

But drivers soon come to expect them as standard, as do regulators….When this happens, such gadgetry becomes just another manufacturing cost“.

This is perhaps a reason for “safe food marketing” never to have been a workable solution.

There is however a more encouraging note in the article. Modern technology has helped reduce car fatalities: according to the article, in 2010 US car accident mortality was the lowest since 1949. Though, with a death toll of over 33,000, there is still much to do. In many ways, this reminds the successes, and failures, of food safety.

What is most inspiring comes from Volvo. Its safety-research chief,  Thomas Broberg said that their “aim is that by 2020 no one will ever be killed or seriously hurt driving their latest models“. No matter how “stupid” the driver is. In the food sector, where blaming the consumer is still state-of-the art risk communication, this is refreshing.

Food businesses have total safety built in regulations – yet, the food safety system, occasionally, still fails. Perhaps, food trade associations, or individual companies, should give themselves a 2020 goal similar to Volvo‘s.

_ Luca Bucchini, Managing Director –

What nuclear safety can teach food safety

Doubtless, foodborne pathogens and contamination have caused more deaths and disease than civil nuclear technology. Luckily, however, producing safe food – or even mostly safe food – is a much easier task than managing a nuclear reactor. A recent article on The Economist provides interesting insights of what nuclear – and food – safety have in common.

The article debates the Fukushima disaster, and sums it up this way:

the equipment was “of an old design. The risks they faced had not been well analysed. The operating company was poorly regulated and did not know what was going on. The operators made mistakes. The representatives of the safety inspectorate fled. Some of the equipment failed. The establishment repeatedly played down the risks and suppressed information…

This could be a food company responsible for an outbreak – happens all the time. Old equipment, lack of proper risk analysis, bad management, lax regulation, human error, equipment failure, no communication of risks.

Philippe Jamet, of France’s nuclear regulator, says something food safety people should listen to: often safety people have a shortfall of imagination, it has not happened so it can’t happen. In his words, “If you had asked me a year ago about an accident in which multiple units were left without power and cooling. I would have said it was not credible.

A good lesson follows:

The need to keep questioning things—from the details of maintenance procedures to one’s sense of the worst that could go wrong—is at the heart of a successful safety culture. …the example of a worker noticing that a diesel generator has been switched off. It is not enough to switch it back on. You also have to ask how and why it got switched off, and what other consequences that may have had. When you have got to the root of it, you not only have to change procedure but also to make sure that all other similar plants know about the problem and how to solve it.

Keep questioning things, rather than assuming that the standard is fine, is important in food safety, as is the food safety culture across the organization.

There’s a final interesting piece, especially to countries that, as their key safety message, keep telling consumers to buy national to be absolutely safe:

In many places, and particularly in Japan, the industry has felt a need to tell the public that nuclear power is safe in some absolute way…..

and after disaster:

If the Japanese nuclear establishment—industry and regulators alike—wants to earn trust, it must be seen to be learning every lesson it can. It must admit how little it previously deserved trust and explain clearly how it will do better in future. Even then, such trust will not always be given.

This seems a very good remark for many food risk managers and communicators. There is a lesson for any national food authority, or industry, which has failed. More generally, complacency has no place in the nuclear, but also in the food safety industry.

– Luca Bucchini, Managing Director –

Sorbitol death is wake-up call for Internet retailers

In Barletta, a town with 91,000 inhabitants in South-East Italy, a woman has died, and two have been hospitalized after ingesting a vial which seems to have contained sorbitol. According to Carlo Locatelli, of the Poisons Center in Pavia, Italy, which is one of Italy’s leading Poisons Centers, the patients developed methemoglobinemia, a condition in which oxygen cannot be captured by red blood cells. Fortunately, the two surviving patients were saved by prompt administration of methylene blue, a colour dye, which also reverses methemoglobinemia .

Sorbitol is a polyol which naturally occurs in fruit, and is widely used in candies and other low-calorie products. From the outset, the symptomatology suggested that nitrates could be responsible for the tragic deaths. According to Italy’s Ministry of Health, there is no information suggesting product contamination. Nevertheless, the Italian police squad assigned to food safety matters, the NAS, have seized over 1,000 tons of food-grade sorbitol at Cargill’s plants in Northern Italy but have apparently ordered no product testing. The implicated sorbitol was manufactured at Cargill’s plant in Rovigo, in Northern Italy. The most recent media reports indicate that the product was 70% sodium nitrite, and it is unclear how it could have been mistaken for sorbitol. News that implicated an industry-grade sorbitol lot (sorbitol is also used for manufacturing plastics, etc) are not confirmed.

It is early to say what the root cause of the problem was, or what failed in the system that should protect patients, and to separate the root cause from the inevitable legal blame-game that follows tragedies.

The doctors administering the sorbitol-based test seem to have purchased the product from eBay, which has expressed sorrow and halted globally the sales of sorbitol. It is unclear if a recall should follow, or if it will. There’s no basis at this time to suggest that food companies should recall sorbitol-containing products; however, they can trace their sorbitol to exclude the affected lot is involved. Moreover, they should follow closely the events.

Cargill has issued a press release in Italian (well done, and the loss of website formatting means their crisis team had to act quickly), explaining that the lot was manufactured at their site in February 2010, and since packaged elsewhere. The product conformed to tests when it left the production site.

As we wait for further news, it is still unclear how the product was sold over ebay.

For the moment, this tragedy seems to show that Internet retailers, when selling foods or food ingredients, are food business operators, and should ensure the safety of their products – much like grocery retailers do – and issuing recalls when necessary.  eBay seems to be behaving like a responsible food business. Others, like Amazon, should start doing the same even if they think they’re not food businesses.

– Luca Bucchini, Managing Director –

No more botulin in olives, please

Preserved olives (“Organic Olives Stuffed with Almonds”) made in Italy have apparently caused a tragic death in Finland, because of botulism. They are being recalled across Europe (in the UK, in Ireland).

At the time of writing, I firmly hope that there is no further exposure to the product, no further illness, and that a totally preventable death does at least help stave off pain from other lives and families.

The tragic event relates to some lines of reflection relevant to our current research and consulting work.

First, one will note that the recall (which concerns currently all batches of the product) is now clearly mentioned on the firm`s website. Starting on October 28, the news had some traction in Italy too. Informing the public of own recalls through their own websites is considered best practice, though only a minority of companies appear to do so on either side of the Atlantic; apparently, on that day the company sent a Press Release to Italy’s leading news agency, ANSA.

Italian authorities, who are certainly taking action in the field, have also been silent about the issue, including whether the same product is distributed locally (it turns out it is), till today, October 31 (the Ministry of Health seems to confirm that the olives were on sale in Italy too, and that the plant has been shut down). Normally Italian authorities go public when botulism is suspected, unlike when other foodborne disease is (Listeriosis, Salmonellosis, etc), or when there is no illness. Italian authorities generally believe that they are capable of controlling risks, and that information to consumers would not reduce the risk to consumers but would result in undue alarmism, with unwarranted losses to the relevant food sector. This is in line with the attitude in Germany and other EU countries, and contrasts sharply with the US/UK approach, though in principle the UK has the same regulatory system (a lay-man reading of the EU General Food Safety Law would support UK`s practice). However, botulism is an exception, and in this case there was lots of media pressure, and a tragic death to confirm the need to go public.

Generally, however, even beyond botulism, we expect more food recalls to be publicized in Italy and other previously shy EU countries, because of several reasons.

Consumers are becoming used to nonfood recalls (for example, those of IKEA are common place), even if they see very few food-related ones. Moreover, when a food recall has in fact been made public and there were no illnesses, the media impact has been nihil or benign. Therefore, the brand damage of issuing a press release in case of a recall can now be estimated with some confidence. The cost of not going public early, on the other hand, is also becoming clearer: consumers are coming to expect public recalls as part of a company`s social responsibility. In this case, the delay has further tarnished, or probably killed, the brand reputation – when the issue was clearly too large to remain silent.

There also seems to be more willingness of international companies to apply best practice across the EU, even against national norms. Carrefour went recently public with a recall.

Also, some online media blogs and magazines are increasing their attention to this topic, and put pressure on firms (and authorities).

Leaving communication aside, organic, or home-made style, preserved olives have caused recurring botulism problems in Italy and elsewhere. This is striking. We have understood botulism for almost two centuries, and there is is strong food technology to keep the toxins out of our food. Preserving food requires knowledge, process and controls: food safety is not a malicious invention of multinational funded, greedy, positivist tradition haters. Most organic or home-made style food businesses may accept the anti-science rhetoric, but refrain from practicing it. Nevertheless, a few, smaller ones may not realize the need for skilled staff; more do not realize that validation of processes is not auditors`latest oddity. How much this applies to the present case it is early to say, though we know for sure that botulin should not have been there, and that the technology to prevent it is available.

In this respect, the organic food industry should be bold, and use its means, without excuses, to rid us of the hazards, least this tarnishes the organic brand (through certification they have strong tools). There is certainly a place for auditors, and official control staff to just say no when preserving can`t be done properly.

In summary, we advise to review recall plans under the communication header and make sure not to make, or stop making, preserved foods (my steadfast advice to all agriturismi is not to do it) or, if you do, that you can make it properly (for every recipe).

And let`s hope nobody hears, or dies, of botulism and olives again.

Luca Bucchini, Managing Director

Update:  on Nov 1st, the FDA made the recall (which is of a voluntary nature) public.

%d bloggers like this: