GFSF FOCUS April-May
A New Stage in Food Safety
Chinese Food Safety Issues in the Internet Era
Ru-Shiuan Lin, GIC Group
As the Internet advanced rapidly over the past years, it has greatly helped us improve food safety. For example, the new tracing or monitoring systems enable us to ensure via the Internet that food can be transported under appropriate temperatures. However, the convenience of the Internet can also cause food safety problems. For instance, food delivery apps have been booming over several years, and apps like Eleme, Meituan and Baidu Takeout have made ordering food easy via mobile devices. In December 2015, the size of the online food ordering market was 7.09 billion RMB with more than 10% growth rate. However, this booming market has also led to more food safety issues. For example, when purchasing food through the Internet, consumers can’t see the physical environment of the food providers, a fact that leads some unqualified local restaurants to sell their food through these popular apps with relatively little supervision from the authorities. The recent big news about the Eleme, the famous Chinese online food-ordering platform that has been invested in by Alibaba since the end of 2015, would be an example. In March 2016, Eleme was accused by the Chinese media of offering food from unqualified vendors. It was said that Eleme didn’t take responsibilities for filtering out unqualified vendors and providing correct information about food sources.
In fact, in the new China food safety law, which has been effective since October 2015, there is a specific article regulating the online food-trading platform. The specific citation is Chapter 4: Food Production and Distribution, Section 2: Article 62, which states that:
Third-party platform providers for online food trade shall implement real-name registration of admitted food distributors, specify their food safety management responsibilities and, if they have lawfully obtained licensing, inspect their licenses.
Upon finding any activity in breach of this law, they shall immediately stop the activity and report to the food and drug administration of the competent people's government at the county level; in case of a serious breach, they shall immediately stop providing online trading platform services.
However, the revolution of technology and business is always ahead of law amendment. It seems that this latest strict food safety law is not enough to avoid food safety problems for online food trade because this law is just a framework. The government needs to make more effort to establish specific standards and guidelines about how to manage the online food trade platform so as to avoid food safety problems. First, the authorities need to create a detailed management and supervision system for online food trade to ensure that the third-party platforms have a higher standard for selecting food providers on the platforms and provide consumers correct vendor information. Then, the authorities should implement the law and inspect all platforms thoroughly, and penalize those platforms in breach of this law.
Actually, some local governments already took action to solve the food safety problems of online food trade. For example, Beijing Food and Drug Administration proposed the Beijing supervision and management measures of the online food business to regulate online food providers, and started to ban the unlicensed restaurants which sold food via online food ordering platforms. Also, in March 2016, Pudong New Area Market Supervision Bureau issued a license to Hema Waimai, a food company run by Shanghai Yiheng Network Technology Co Ltd, to allow it to receive online orders and provide takeout food. This is the first license for online food ordering in China, and other local governments in the near future might follow this practice.
Although the new food safety law has already taken the online food trade into consideration, not until the breakout of food safety events would the government and the whole society pay attention and take further action to deal with the potential food safety problems. As the specific guidelines are established, only companies obeying the law could be winners while unqualified third-party platforms and food providers would be kicked out of the market in the end.
INTERVIEW: BILL MARLER, MANAGING PARTNER at MARLER CLARK, LLP, with
RICK GILMORE, CHAIRMAN, GFSF
Bill Marler is an accomplished personal injury lawyer and national expert in foodborne illness legislation, and has been a major force in food safety policy in the United States and abroad. He and his partners at Marler Clark have represented thousands of individuals in claims against food companies whose contaminated products have caused serious injury and death. His advocacy for better food regulation has led to invitations to address local, national, and international gatherings on food safety, including recent testimony to the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Marler Clark is considered the nation’s foremost law firm representing victims of foodborne illness and other serious personal injuries.
Question: We tend to regard the US as the paragon of virtue when it comes to food safety. But you have been a clarion of conscience; reminding us that acceptance and enforcement of standards at all phases of the supply chain have much work that still needs to be done. Where do the biggest transgressions lie in the food import sector, which is so important to the food industry in the US?
Answer: The reality is that when I started in this business during the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak in 1993, imported food was still a small part of our food safety concerns. As our desire for a 24/7/365 food supply has increased – does anyone recall when a food was “out of season”? – our imports have increased and so have the risks and the outbreaks linked to imports. We have seen several outbreaks linked to imported fruits and vegetables, fish and spices. Of great concern has been food scares coming out of China.
Follow-on Question: Where are the biggest regulatory gaps, which in effect tend to allow these transgressions to occur unnoticed?
Answer: For imports it is the utter lack of real inspection by FDA or FSIS officials.
Follow-on-Question: Do you think FDA’s import regulations and FSVP will be sufficient medicine to combat food safety threats from food/ ingredient imports into the US?
Answer: I am hopeful, but the government will not lead it unless taxpayers are willing to foot the bill for more frequent inspections. It will really be up to importers and the food industry they serve to “self police.”
Question: Bill, you have been an influential force in food safety compliance in the US. As a lawyer specializing in personal injury cases in the US, do you think your success offers a model that can be replicated in other national regulatory environments?
Answer: Well, some other countries are flirting with a civil justice system similar to what we see in the U.S. However, even in the U.S. our surveillance and legal systems only catch a very small portion of the actual cases that occur each year. Yes, a few well-placed lawsuits help draw attention to problems, but it is still the responsibility of the governments and the industry to get it right before people are sickened.
One other change in the last few years that likely will focus the attention of industry is the increase in criminal prosecutions in tainted food cases. The multi-million dollar fines and the decades in jail are potentially a very meaningful wake-up call.
Follow-on Question: How about in China? Granted, the legal systems here and in China are vastly different but when it comes to food safety, maybe there’s common ground. Chinese regulators tell us they need help from GFSF and the private sector to strengthen compliance. China, as we know, has a top down strategy to clean up the rampant corruption. Do you think a Chinese equivalent of a Bill Marler would be something you might recommend for food safety enforcement in China and elsewhere in Asia?
Answer: I once spoke at a food safety conference in China and told the audience of government officials and manufacturers that I could not sue them in China for sickening U.S. customers, but I could – and would – sue importers and retail chains. Although they first seemed relieved, when they understood that the lawsuits would in a way make their products more expensive, they understood that the importers would look other places for safer food.
Question: When you litigate a personal injury case, you’re trying to redress an incident that has already occurred. GFSF offers a range of programs and activities that focuses on risk avoidance. If you share my view that there is a synergy in the two approaches, we’d welcome your thoughts in this regard.
Answer: Avoiding a food contamination event prevents a customer from becoming ill. If there are no ill customers, I have nothing to do. So yes, prevention is the key.
Question: It would seem to me that your work, much as our own orientation, relies on food safety technologies for detection and certification. Are there any new food safety technologies that you would single out in importance, such as food safety tracing systems or mass spectrometers?
Answer: Hands down it is whole genome sequencing (WGS). WGS has the opportunity to link people in time and space and hopefully allow outbreaks to be determined quicker.
Question: Here’s the crystal ball question, Bill. Do you think advances in food safety in the global supply chain are gaining momentum? If so, would you elaborate on where you think we might be in 5 years if we continue on the same continuum? If we are slowing down or falling off the track, what do you see as the most troublesome sign that could indicate systemic issues in the near future?
Answer: I think that even with the technology that is available today our food supply system is quite transparent. I think that will only increase over time. I think that transparency allows for the parts of the system that are failing to be corrected.
Food Safety and Agricultural Development in Myanmar
Chandler Foust, GIC Group
Food safety and quality in Myanmar are inextricably linked to the level of economic and technological development within the Southeast Asian nation’s agricultural sector. Current Myanmar efforts at enforcing and improving food safety are riddled with demonstrable implementation constraints and a lack of funding. Yet, the inherent productive potential of the nation’s agricultural sector offers an opportunity to create a steady source of funding for the effective implementation of policies relating to food safety and quality.
Myanmar’s main advantages, as noted by the Asian Development Bank, are its large supply of land, water and labor, and its location between the populous nations of India and China. The nation currently cultivates 12.8 million hectares of land, with the prospect of increasing this total by 50 percent. In addition, the nation’s average land holdings are high compared to other Asian nations, which allows a quicker shift towards productivity enhancing technologies, while preventing rapid migration from farmland. The abundance of water resources is evidenced by Myanmar accruing over 19,000 cubic meters per capita of fresh water each year (9 times higher than China and 16 times higher than India), but utilizing only 10 percent of its total water resources. This is also seen by three of the four major river systems in the area originating in Myanmar, which gives the nation sole jurisdiction over them. The abundance of labor resources is demonstrated by 56 percent of Myanmar’s total workforce working in agriculture, and being comparatively cheap, with the nation’s minimum wage being the smallest in Southeast Asia, which will keep production costs low. Lastly, Myanmar is located between the major food markets of India and China, with 1,930 kilometers of coastline and a continental shelf of 229,000 km.
Myanmar has already taken steps to spur agricultural growth through its 2011 National Strategy on Poverty Alleviation and the 2011-2030 National Comprehensive Development Plan, which aims to increase agricultural productivity; compete economically with neighboring countries, attract Foreign Direct Investment for technology, marketing and employment; and increase access to strategic foreign markets. But, in order to realize continued development of the agricultural sector, Myanmar must better fund the government agencies that deal with food safety and quality as well. The lead organization for food safety control is the Myanmar Food and Drug Board Authority (MFDBA), as it oversees and directs policy relating to “production, distribution, importation, exportation, quality assurance, standard setting, classifying controlled food, food additives and substandard foods, labeling and advertisement.” With only two offices in Yangon and Mandalay, and a small staff and budget, the MFDBA faces an uphill battle in establishing a comprehensive food safety system. For instance, due to small size and budget constraints, imported food from border areas is not under “strict control,” while family-owned food producers are exempted from MFDBA recommendations.
The lack of resources provided to promote food safety and quality negatively impacts the growth potential of Myanmar’s agricultural sector, which in turn creates a vicious cycle that prevents any improvement in food safety and quality. For instance, high-quality seeds are not available for the majority of farmers, who instead import a high amount of low quality and poorly regulated chemical inputs. From 2005 to 2010 Myanmar saw a 1000 percent increase in the use of pesticides, which, unlike fertilizer usage, is coalescing with other nations. Yet, as Myanmar farmers are not properly trained to use the pesticides correctly, and as the pesticides are predominately unregulated, this could lead to serious environmental and health problems in the future.
Another area where Myanmar’s low level of food safety and quality hurts the development of the agricultural sector is in the livestock and fisheries sector. Contributing 7.4 percent of GDP in 2010, livestock and fisheries play an important part in the growth of the agricultural sector. Yet, due to recurring outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, swine fever and avian influenza, this important sector of Myanmar’s economy is relegated almost exclusively to the domestic market. A third example is Myanmar’s lack of water management. As mentioned earlier, Myanmar is in a strong position due to its large amount of water resources, but due to a lack of irrigation (only 20 percent of all land is irrigated), many farmers have little access to water resources during the dry season. The lack of irrigated land also contributes to an excessive buildup of water during the monsoon season, which is illustrated by the fact that, unlike other Southeast Asian nations, Myanmar’s areas under dry season paddy have increased little in the past 10 to 15 years. This impacts the growth of the agricultural sector because during the dry season the right paddy varieties could increase yields, and it is also the season when other nations have seen the largest growth in yields. Instead, Myanmar rice farmers resort to planting taller customary varieties that are unresponsive to fertilizer and have low yields.
Instituting strong food safety and quality standards will be difficult until the right domestic infrastructure is built to promote it. Myanmar has only 6 km of road per 100 km2 of land area, and the lowest motor vehicle penetration in Southeast Asia. In addition, the majority of milling equipment used dates back to the 1930s-1960s period, and many of the mills do not have steady access to electricity. If Myanmar is to promote food safety and quality it must further invest in quality infrastructure, and the relevant government agencies such as the MFBDA. Myanmar must also invest in its agricultural sector in order to realize its vast agricultural potential going forward, which could help pay for the large, but important, projects ahead.
Lastly, there are cultural as well as economic barriers to introducing even the most elementary food safety standards and practices. Myanmar is a largely agrarian economy; both rural and urban communities center on open-air markets as the wholesale and retail outlet for local production. These markets observe minimal standard requirements and, in most cases, function in an unregulated environment. While not a new phenomenon, the central role of food markets throughout the country is currently a major source of food safety abuse.
INTERVIEW: ROMAN MILER, CEO, DUDA,
with RICK GILMORE, CHAIRMAN, GFSF
Roman Miler is the newly appointed CEO of DUDA, a leader in Poland’s swine industry and formerly Trade Director and Member of the Management Board for Trade and Production and Deputy President of the Management Board of DUDA S.A.
Question: Exports of pork products from Poland continue to face an embargo in China based on their findings that wild boars infected with ASF (African swine fever) continue to penetrate Poland from neighboring Belarus. I am sure you would agree that this is a dramatic case of a food safety threat negatively impacting an important industry. The obvious first question, then, is what measures has DUDA, as a leader in the industry in Poland, taken to eradicate this threat, thereby addressing China’s concerns.
Answer: The main change for our company was taking full control over the food. Cedrob group, which currently has the most ownership, is a producer of the highest quality fodder for our farms. The production process for the fodder is under strict control on each level, which gives us a hundred percent safety assurance. When it comes to the ASF problem, to begin with, the infected wild boars are located in a specific, separated region of Eastern Poland, an area about 500 km from our plant and 600-700 km from our farms. Nevertheless, preventive measures have been undertaken. The foundation is prevention and monitoring. All activities occur in cooperation with The National Veterinary Inspection. All of our farms have been reviewed; additional disinfection treatments have been added and the movement of transportation and people is under full control. We also prohibited meals from the outside being brought to the farms and the plant in order to have food under full control. At the entrance to the factory we installed an additional disinfection pan which heats up during the winter time. All livestock must go through that pan. The drivers who are in contact with suppliers have an additional sanitary room and their trucks are covered by supplementary supervision. We also carry on additional prevention training for our workforce.
Follow-on Question: Despite your efforts and those of other swine producers in Poland, the embargo is still in effect. And yet, presumably, the Government of Poland and industry now have the means of minimizing wild boar intrusions along with ASF eradication measures. According to the SPS (Phytosanitary Agreement) of the World Trade agreement, “… no Member should be prevented from adopting or enforcing measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, subject to the requirement that these measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between Members where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade.” Do you think that the Polish swine industry is now a food safety role model, which merits China’s reconsideration of the embargo?
Answer: Definitely. The basic element is the fact that ASF mostly concerns wild boars, which is where the infected cases were found, and they are administratively separated and under special control. The best proof that it works is the fact that there has been no extension of the infected area and no new cases have been found outside the separated area. The subject of ASF does not concern the swine. In the case of our company, almost half of the livestock comes from our own farms or are subjected to control of the fodder companies, which is a guarantee of safety. I can say with full conviction that it assures the safety of production.
Question: If I were to ask you if you considered this protracted food safety incident as an opportunity in retrospect, what would be your response?
Answer: Obviously, this phenomenon should not have happened, but as for now, it is under full control and does not create any risk in the production of pork.
Follow-on Question: Do you think the commercial downturn in the swine industry EU-wide was partially attributable to the embargo? If so, would it now be fair to say that DUDA’s response in upgrading its food safety systems offers a potential to add value to your product and open up new marketing opportunities?
Answer: The embargo represents loss for both sides. The lack of exports is the reason for the downturn in Poland, but there is also loss for Chinese companies and especially for consumers in China. Polish pork meat is among the best in Europe.
Question: Let’s leave the embargo and focus on what you think are the prerequisites for the industry as a supplier of safe, high quality product.
Answer: Most of all, the safety of production and preventive actions, such as implemented by DUDA.
Follow-on Question: What technologies, such as tracing systems, has DUDA come to rely on for strengthening food safety risk mitigation in its plant operations – slaughtering, packaging, and distribution?
Answer: The solutions, in which the whole process is being controlled, give us the warranty. That is how it works in PKM group. The fodder, genetics, farms, manufacturing, cutting, and packing. All in all, the maximum elimination of agents and full supervision.
Question: GFSF, as a non-profit industry food safety promotion organization, focuses on Asian markets. There are certainly synergies between our services and DUDA’s role as a food safety leader. My closing question, to emphasize the positive, would be to ask you to address what synergies you see and what we should flag as key global supply chain issues for the swine industry.
Answer: We are pleased to be associated with GFSF's work in China and welcome opportunities for private-public sector collaboration, which GFSF provides. With a leading brand and a track record in food safety and high quality product, we at DUDA look forward to assuming a leading role in GFSF's efforts to offer training and assistance in compliance to its member.
Technology Spotlight
Minseok Kim, GIC Group
Amplified Nucleic Single Temperature Reaction (ANSR) System for Listeria
Neogen Corporation, a biotechnology business dedicated to the development and marketing of solutions for food and animal safety, offers diagnostic tools and tests that can provide early warnings for potential breakdowns in food safety programs due to pathogens such as L. monocytogenes, which have been the cause of several outbreaks in the US. Among these systems, ANSR for Listeria has been NF certified in accordance with the current criteria for a NF Validation study carried out according to the EN ISO 16140 part 2 standard for food and environmental samples. This new validation follows the kit’s initial approval by AOAC International.
ANSR utilizes patent-pending, unique amplification reaction technology for in vitro DNA amplification. Unlike PCR, ANSR is isothermal, replicating DNA at a constant temperature using a polymerase to exponentially amplify the DNA at 56°C. ANSR’s DNA amplification methodology exponentially amplifies the DNA of any target bacteria present in an enriched food sample to detectable levels in only minutes. Target nucleic acid is amplified through a mechanism of polymerization from the ends of nicks created in double-stranded DNA by the action of a specific endonuclease. Amplified target sequences are detected in real time using fluorescent molecular beacon probes.
Isothermal DNA amplification and fluorescent detection
Single-stranded DNA is produced from target Listeria ribosomal RNA through the action of reverse transcriptase. This complementary DNA then serves as the target for the amplification reaction. The amplification mechanism involves the binding of an oligonucleotide “template” to a specific sequence of target DNA. The template contains a recognition site for a specific endonuclease. The nicked strand is recognized as damaged and repaired by the action of a thermo stable DNA polymerase, displacing the original strand with the newly synthesized repaired portion. This displaced DNA “product” then binds to a second template and the same reactions lead to the formation of a second product. The second product is homologous to the target sequence and is detected using a specific molecular beacon probe. A fluorescent signal is generated in real time, with amplification and detection complete in less than 20 minutes. The entire assay is conducted at a constant temperature of 56°C using a temperature-controlled fluorescence detection instrument.
Assay software analyzes the fluorescent signal over time; a data interpretation algorithm interprets the results as negative, positive, or invalid based on baseline, rate-of-change, and other criteria. ANSR reagents are provided in ready-to-use lyophilized form, containing all enzymes, oligonucleotide templates, molecular beacon probe, and other factors required for the reverse transcription, amplification, and detection reactions. Each tube of ANSR reagents also contains an internal positive control, signaling in a second fluorescence channel irrespective of the presence of target nucleic acid, and indicating proper functioning of the amplification reagents.
Vietnamese Rice: A Case For Increased Quality and Sustainability
Chandler Foust, GIC Group
In late 2015, former Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyễn Tấn Dũng approved the Scheme of Developing Vietnam’s Rice Brand Up to 2020, Vision to 2030, which aims to upgrade the quality of Vietnamese rice and develop internationally recognized indigenous rice brands. This comes after the nation’s rapid success at increasing rice production, which is seen by rice production expanding from 25 million tons in 1995 to 40 million tons in 2010, and Vietnam exporting 7 million tons of rice in 2015. Yet, the major causal factor underpinning Vietnam’s increased rice production was the increased usage of high-yielding rice varieties and agrochemicals, which has brought forth problems of its own. For instance, the number of commercial pesticides in Vietnam increased from 75 in 1995 to 1129 in 2004, with insecticides seeing the largest increase during this time period. This large increase in agrochemicals has not only harmed the quality of the rice, but has also led to environmental degradation, soil deterioration and to human sickness for those exposed.
Vietnam’s lack of regulatory infrastructure to monitor quality inputs and ensure that the rice produced is safe and of high quality has led to a low reputation for Vietnamese rice (Japan suspended the importation of Vietnamese rice in 2008 due to high residual pesticide levels for 5 years), and widespread agrochemical abuse. For example, a 2014 inspection by Vietnam’s Plant Protection Department found that of all rice retailers inspected, a full 13.8 percent committed violations that included not having the proper licenses, storage areas not up to government standards, and selling products that were expired or not properly labeled. Residual pesticides found in traded commodities are, of course, a prime area of regulatory concern worldwide. Rejected cargoes of food, including rice and seafood continue to plague Vietnam’s exports to strategic foreign markets. In fact, according to a 2006 World Bank study, even when only taking into account fruits and vegetables, Vietnam loses $700 million USD a year due to health costs and lost export options. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) in Vietnam are also below international standards, thereby raising additional environmental costs to the overall food safety calculation.
The widespread abuse of agrochemicals illustrates a deeper problem though. As mentioned earlier, for the past 30 years Vietnamese rice farmers have relied on an increased usage of agrochemicals to raise yield levels, which creates an uphill battle for Vietnam from a regulatory standpoint, as heavy usage of agrochemicals has been perceived as necessary in the short term by Vietnamese farmers. In order to correct this, Vietnam must expand and better integrate existing programs of pest and weed management, as they have shown past success at combating pest and weed infestations while decreasing the usage of agrochemicals.
For instance, since 1992, with the help of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Vietnam has been implementing the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, and recently passed an IPM program for the years 2015-2020. The core of the IPM program is a Farmer Field School (FFS) that brings small and medium scale farmers to the table and works on improving sustainable agricultural practices and a more efficient use of agrochemicals. Beginning in 2003, part of the FFS was teaching farmers the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), which has currently seen its practices spread throughout the entire nation. Past results of adopting the SRI have shown that farmers can reduce seed volume 70 to 90 percent and nitrogen volume 20-25 percent, while increasing yield levels 9 to 15 percent. While Vietnam has seen some success in the reduction of agrochemical usage, increased yields, and more sustainable agricultural practices in the long term, not enough farmers have access to resources such as the FFS, and in turn the SRI. Also, the FFS and other programs like it have largely ignored the issues of weed infestation, which contributes a large portion to yield losses and lowers the quality of Vietnamese rice. In addition, Vietnamese efforts to improve agricultural sustainability, through standards such as GAP, has largely consisted of good ideas and intentions, but has been implemented poorly due to the disarticulated nature of various Vietnamese efforts.
This leads to a larger point. It is not that Vietnam doesn’t regulate pesticides in its market; in fact, it has maintained a list of banned pesticides since 1992. What holds back Vietnam from successfully regulating its pesticide market is a lack of cohesion between the relevant government departments and a lack of political will to enforce pesticide regulations. For instance, many studies such as Pham Van Hoi’s in an article for the Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences has characterized Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) as a highly centralized and hierarchical organization based in Hanoi, having little contact with the day to day operations of the pesticide market. This, in turn, has meant that MARD regulations are not “embedded in the social, economic and policy networks of rural Vietnam.” This is demonstrated by the fact that in interviews conducted by Pham Van Hoi in the same article, “None of the farmers and retailers… were aware of” MARD’s list of legal and illegal pesticides.[1] This lack of embeddedness is also reflected in the fact that, as Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade notes, 30-35 percent of Vietnam’s imported pesticides enter the country illegally. More critically, MARD’s lack of knowledge and embeddedness within rural Vietnam means that it does not adapt effectively to changing trends in the legal and illegal pesticide markets. This is demonstrated by the fact that between 1999 and 2008 only one pesticide was banned (Endosulfan) and only one pesticide was restricted (Methomyl). Since MARD has been ineffective at regulating and monitoring the usage of pesticides, as opposed to replacing ineffective and harmful pesticides with higher-quality brands, these higher-quality brands have simply been added to Vietnam’s pesticide market, and mainly in areas where farmers have the resources to obtain them, such as around Hanoi.
Lastly, going forward, Vietnam must view issues such as rice quality and the sustainability of its agricultural sector holistically, as they are intertwined issues. A good starting point is using the already prevalent FFS model to help raise the quality of its rice sector, while teaching more sustainable pest and weed management practices so that farmers are less inclined to overindulge in agrochemicals. FFS could serve as a unique avenue to not only make sure that Vietnam’s GAP is actually followed by the majority of its farmers, but also to bring it into line with the most rigorous international standards. If Vietnam is to meet its ambitious rice quality targets, such as having high quality nationally trademarked rice account for 20 percent of total rice exports by 2020, and 50 percent by 2030, it is imperative that it integrate its existing disarticulated regulatory framework and use existing programs such as the FFS. This could, in turn, not only lead to gains in rice quality, but also to an improvement in environmental sustainability and food safety.
About GFSF
GFSF is a not-for-profit organization, founded and managed worldwide by GIC Group, with a diverse but interrelated industry membership: producers, processors, merchandisers/shippers/distributors, and retailers. GFSF/China is jointly managed by the GIC Group and its partner, BRIC Global Agricultural Consultants, with offices in Washington, DC, and Beijing.
CONTACT
GIC GROUP
GFSF/ GIC GROUP
1434 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-684-1366
Fax: 703-684-1369
Email: asansbury@gicgroup.com
[1] Hoi, Pham Van, Arthur Mol, and Peter Oosterveer. "State Governance of Pesticide Use and Trade in Vietnam." NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 67 (2013): 19-26.
