On Friday afternoon (3/7/09) I was abruptly awoken from my comfortable state of relaxation to hear the media were reporting (again) on the safety of fresh produce in New South Wales. The issue stemmed from questions regarding pesticide residues on fresh fruit and vegetables, and the lack of independent government testing since 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald's story headline was, 'Consumers blind to toxic dangers at greengrocers'. Now let's look at some facts. Last published data showed 2.4% of fruit and 5.3% of vegetables tested at Sydney Markets exceeded permitted maximum residue levels. But that does not mean our fresh produce is unsafe to eat. Nor is it 'toxic'!

I have no argument with independent government testing to monitor the safety of the food supply. And I openly encourage balanced and practical information for consumers on fresh produce safety, so that they can make informed food choices. However, when a spokesperson from the federal government's APVMA went on ABC radio 2BL during drive time that day talking about whether we need to wash fresh produce to ensure its safety, I was somewhat flabbergasted! She made comments along the lines that if you can't see it (meaning chemical residues) then there's no need to wash fruit and vegetables. However, there is also the matter of microbial contamination and safety of fresh produce. 

The key message that WHO, food safety experts and governments would normally give is 'to wash all fresh produce under clean running tap water to remove dirt, possible pesticide residues and harmful microbes'. So please, let's ensure that Australian consumers are well informed about the quality and safety of their fresh produce - and know how to handle and store fresh fruit and vegetables to maintain both quality and safety.  

This week marks Australia's 12th annual food safety awareness week led by the Food Safety Information Council. The theme for 2008 is 'Food Adventure's - New Foods, New Cooking Techniques.'  

Some 12 long years ago I was privileged to coordinate the inaugural national food safety awareness campaign with the theme: Food Safety: Make it your Business! At that time, we promoted that every year there are some 1.2 million cases of food poisoning in Australia; twelve years on the statistic has risen to an estimated 5.4 million cases of foodborne illness. So it would be fair to ask the question, "What effect is the public information campaigns on food safety having on reducing the burden of foodborne illness?" 

The public needs to be well informed about all food safety matters and there are many good government and industry websites providing relevant information. However, I always come back to the position of promoting an evidence-based approach to food safety education and targeting information to address specific high risk food safety practices and working to achieve behaviour change. There must be appropriate validation of food safety messages and follow up evaluation. Only in that way can we assess the overall effectiveness and impact of such public information programs on food safety.  

This year is the UN International Year of Sanitation calling for improved hygiene practices. A key event on the calendar is the inaugural Global Handwashing Day [GHD] (http://www.globalhandwashingday.org) to be celebrated around the world on Wednesday, 15 October. Some 72 countries have registered their participation in this global event (see GHD website). The primary target audience is school children, who are being encouraged to wash their hands with soap and water before eating, and after using the toilet.   Australian children's music group The Wiggles   launched GHD for UNICEF in Sydney today. Their catchy 48 second handwashing song can be heard at the UNICEF Australia website (http://www.unicef.com.au).

Most Australians would be unaware that handwashing with soap could save one million lives each year. Furthermore, washing with soap is among the most effective ways to prevent diarrhoeal diseases and pneumonia, which together account for the majority of child deaths. The body of social and behavioural research now available provides a strong evidence base to guide action on how to address changing handwashing behaviours. There are some very interesting case studies documented at the GHD website.                    

The recent CHOICE/ NSW Cancer Council [http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/] consumer survey comparing 'traffic light' labelling and food industry's Daily Intake Guide needs to be put into perspective. The following comments from Safe Food Connexions were run by AusFoodNews today.

Basically what is being compared here is a simple visual cue (coloured traffic lights) to guide consumer choice regarding the ‘healthiness’ of a packaged product versus a more detailed numerical system. It’s not surprising that busy shoppers would find the simple traffic light labelling on front of packs appealing.

However, the important question is NOT whether one system is better than the other because we just don’t know from the limited number of consumer surveys conducted here and overseas. From a public health perspective, the significant question to ask is this: Would mandatory (nutrition) labelling using the traffic light system improve or change consumer food choices and lead to healthier diets at the POPULATION LEVEL?

In this respect, there needs to be a thorough risk benefit analysis to assess the overall impact of mandatory traffic light labelling of packaged food in improving population health. And if it did prove to be an effective public health strategy, then why not extend the system to cover all foods, including ready-to-eat and takeaway meals.

Whatever nutrition labelling system is adopted by industry, it should be evaluated thoroughly for effectiveness and impact on not only informing consumers about healthy food choices but also changing poor dietary habits. The weakest link with most public health nutrition interventions and industry information campaigns continues to be the lack of rigorous evaluation.   

Over the past month I have noticed a surge of interest in 'Behaviour Change Communications' (BCC) in the food safety and health fields (http://fsascience.net). We already know that information alone will not change high risk food safety practices, and poor nutritional habits. Yet many government websites continue filling pages with facts on food safety and health for consumers. My question is this: How much effort and resources go into evaluating the effectiveness and impact of the information provided?

I was pleased to see the 'new look' Asian Food Information Centre (AFIC) website, which focuses on food safety and nutrition in the Asian Region...it's worth a browse. What impresses me most, is the quality of the information presented. Congratulations AFIC on your 10th anniversary in 2008!