Food Standards Agency
Report into international foodborne disease rates published
The Food Standards Agency has published the first of three scientific reports, which attempt to compare international food standards.
A report published by the FSA has found it is not possible to compare foodborne disease rates effectively between countries. This is due to the hugely different methodologies and recording systems employed.
Researchers compared the ways different countries estimate how many people suffer from food poisoning each year, in an effort to determine whether these rates can be reliably compared.
The study, commissioned by the FSA and carried out by Public Health England, uncovered three broad approaches used globally:
- Prospective cohort studies – a sample population is recruited in advance, then report weekly on any symptoms of illness and may also submit samples so specific causes can be determined.
- Surveillance pyramid studies – an estimation of the number of cases missed through under-diagnosis and under-reporting, by using multipliers to extrapolate from laboratory confirmed illnesses.
- Retrospective cross-sectional surveys – a representative sample of the population is contacted and asked about their symptoms in the recent past.
Countries need to calculate foodborne disease estimates due to under-reporting, as not everyone who suffers from infectious intestinal disease (IID) will seek medical help and those who do will not always get a confirmed diagnosis. The data can then inform a country’s own food policy and prioritisation of resources.
Researchers concluded that the UK is using the most accurate approach available (prospective cohort studies).
FSA Head of science, evidence and research, Rick Mumford, said:
“The report concludes that attempting to accurately compare different countries’ foodborne disease rates is an almost impossible task. The only way you could attempt this would be for different countries to have the same type of study with the exact same study specifications, over the same time period. Even then, differences in underlying surveillance data available in each country could cause issues, particularly in terms of determining what proportion of IID cases are due to food.
“We have a much greater understanding of the different approaches taken across the globe and will continue to look and learn from this.”
Read the full report here.
Rick Mumford, Head of Science, Evidence & Research Directorate, has provided an analysis of the report and what it means for comparing international food standards
Latest News from
Food Standards Agency
FSA Board meeting papers published for September 202004/09/2020 10:25:00
The agenda and papers for the September Board meeting have been published.
FSA Board commits to building on pandemic insight to anticipate future challenges in the food system28/08/2020 11:10:00
Horizon scanning was one of the main topics of discussion as the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Board met online this week.
Relaunch of independent science advisory committee websites25/08/2020 16:05:00
Today marks the relaunch of the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) websites.
FSA Board meeting papers published for August 202014/08/2020 10:25:00
The agenda and papers for the August Board meeting have been published.
FSA launches campaign to help food sector adapt to the 'new normal'13/08/2020 14:10:00
The Here to Help campaign provides a practical guide for food businesses on how to register, re-open and adapt to the way they trade safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Consumer Tracker waves three and four report published12/08/2020 12:25:00
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has today published the latest findings of the COVID-19 Consumer Tracker and additional qualitative research including social media listening.
FSA welcomes sentencing of DNP seller03/08/2020 14:10:00
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) welcomes the sentencing of a man who unlawfully sold DNP for human consumption.
Call to evidence: Front-of-pack nutrition labelling30/07/2020 14:10:00
We are seeking views and evidence from consumers and industry in Northern Ireland on the current UK ‘multiple traffic light’ label as part of a four-nation consultation.