24012-QS-Report-02-2019_A4_GB.indd

QS-Report Fruit, Vegetables, Potatoes | Issue September 2019 Speakers from left to right: Dr. André Göhler, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR); Dr. Marina Lamparter, BfR; Sascha Schigulski, cibus Rechtsanwälte; Dr. Marcus Langen, Dr. Berns Laboratory GmbH & Co. KG 2 % 12 % 31 % 21 % 7 % 27 % Figure 1: Overview of response times QS-Report Fruit, Vegetables, Potatoes  QS runs traceability tests: All samples traceable from the retailer back to the producer Correct identification and clear traceability of products play a key role in the QS scheme. Therefore, in addition to our regular audits, QS carried out traceability tests over the months June to August 2019. Starting from grocery stores, 47 fruit, vegetable and potato sam- ples labelled with the QS certifica- tion mark were traced back through every stage of the value chain to the primary producer. 123 compa- nies from Germany and the Nether- lands were involved in the checks. TRACEABILITY TESTS REVEAL ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT In all cases, the products could be traced back from the retail store to the producer. As a result of bulk sto- rage or certain packaging and pre- paration processes, individual pro- ducts contained ingredients from up to 6 different producers. In ge- neral, between 3 and 4 companies were involved in the production and marketing of a single product. However, the traceability tests also revealed room for improvement. For example, matching the deli- very note with the sampled goods posed a challenge in some cases. In other cases, it was necessary to correct the identification of QS goods in the shipping documents. In addition, the checks showed that confirmation of a delivery‘s eligibility for the QS scheme was not always carried out correctly and that in some cases there was not sufficient proof of QS appro- val. All things considered, partici- pants in the scheme had a positi- ve attitude towards the detection of weak points, as this helps to optimise internal processes. VERIFICATION OF TRACEABILITY TESTS THROUGH RESIDUE AND ISOTOPE ANALYSIS To verify the traceability tests, 40 product samples were analysed for pesticide residues by a QS appro- ved laboratory. QS compared the active substances detected in the analysis with the pesticides listed in the field register of the respec- tive producer. No anomalies were detected. Only a few active sub- stances were detected which had reached the product due to drift. To further verify the authentici- ty of 5 products, isotope analysis were carried out for the first time. The results confirmed the declared origin in nearly eve- ry case. Only one blueberry sample showed atypical isotope ratios with regard to its country of origin being Germany. In this case, a further sample was taken from the affected field. This confirmed the atypical isotope ratios, proving the first sample’s origin was Germany. FEEDBACK FROM SCHEME PARTICIPANTS AFTER AN AVERAGE OF 9 HOURS AND 18 MINUTES In the event of an incident or crisis, rapid reaction and reliable response from participants in the scheme are crucial. For this reason, the traceability tests paid par- ticular attention to the response times between con- tact being made and the requested information being fed back by each participant: 98% of the companies were able to provide all the information required to ensure traceability within 24 hours (see Figure 1: Over- view of response times). to obtain a STEC / EHEC isolate microbiologically or culturally from food samples in which the molecular biological stx gene is detectable. Normally, samples also contain a predominant number of other (non-STEC) E. coli strains which cannot be distinguished from STEC strains by their appearance on the growth plate. Find- ing exactly those E. coli colonies that actually carry the stx gene and possibly other pathogenicity genes in itself, is therefore almost like searching for a needle in a haystack and for that reason time-consuming and costly. If in a food sample only the molecular biologi- cal detection of one or more stx genes is possible but the cultural proof is not successful, only a “presumed detection” can be repor ted. In these cases, even experts of the food control authorities do not consider it appropriate to rate a ready-to-eat food as ‘not safe’ according to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002. WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION FROM THE WORKSHOP? In the workshop, the participants were given support regarding suitable analytical methods and the correct interpretation of analysis results according to food law. The case studies were particularly well received, in which the participants had the possibility to discuss technical questions and the proper evaluation of analysis results with each other and the speakers. However, it also became clear that there may be certain cases in which the evalua- tion of the results from an expert and food-law point of view is not possible without a doubt. The par ticipants rated the workshop very positively and wished to repeat the event for further discussion.