Animal production, animal health and food safety: Gaps and challenges in the chilean industry


Ibarra, R.; Rich, K.M.; Adasme, M.; Kamp, A.; Singer, R.S.; Atlagich, M.; Estrada, C.; Jacob, R.; Zimin-Veselkoff, N.; Escobar-Dodero, J.; Mardones, F.O.

Food Microbiology 75: 114-118

2018


This paper summarizes the gaps and challenges related to animal production, health, and food safety as discussed by a panel at the 1st International Symposium of Food Safety (ISFS) in Santiago, Chile, in December 2016. Participating representatives of academia, industry, and government and statements from the audience confirmed that food safety is essential for increasing food security. First, panelists identified the need for a science-based regulatory framework to implement effective regulations. Second, they highlighted the importance of a risk analysis framework to quantify the risk of the potential for antimicrobial resistance associated with the use of antimicrobials, and the need of studies to evaluate foodborne prevention/control strategies. Third, the challenges of filling the gaps between industry and academia were addressed, including examples of successful collaboration, opportunities, and weakness identified by industry. Finally, challenges in animal food production included issues related to changing consumer preferences, animal welfare, the use of antimicrobials, and sustainable animal production. The symposium provided a regional platform to share experiences from the implementation of methods and approaches for food safety. The roundtable successfully explored the future science and technology challenges that are of strategic importance for Chile and the region in animal health and food safety.

Food
Microbiology
-FTsEVIER
Food
Microbiology
75
(2018)
114-118
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Food
Microbiology
journal
homepage:
www.elsevier.com/locate/fm
Animal
production,
animal
health
and
food
safety:
Gaps
and
challenges
in
the
chilean
industry
R.
Ibarra
,
K.M.
Rich
,
M.
Adasme
,
A.
Kamp
,
R.S.
Singer
e,
f
,
M.
Atlagich
,
C.
Estrada
R.
Jacob
N.
Zimin-Veselkoff
,
J.
Escobar-Dodero
,
F.O.
Mardones
a
Instituto
Tecnologico
del
Salmon
(INTESAL
de
SalmonChile),
Av.
Juan
Soler
Manfredini
41,
Of
1802,
Puerto
Montt,
Chile
b
International
Livestock
Research
Institute,
East
and
Southeast
Asia
Regional
Office,
Hanoi,
Viet
Nam
Asociacion
Gremial
de
Productores
de
Cerdos
de
Chile
(ASPROCER),
Av.
Isidora
Goyenechea
2939,
Of
101,
Las
Condes,
Santiago,
Chile
d
SOPRAVAL,
Panamericana
Norte
500,
La
Calera,
Valparaiso,
Chile
e
Department
of
Veterinary
and
Biomedical
Sciences,
University
of
Minnesota,
1971
Commonwealth
Ave.,
St
Paul,
MN
55108,
USA
f
Instituto
de
Medicina
Preventiva
Veterinaria,
Facultad
de
Ciencias,
Veterinarias,
Universidad
Austral
de
Chile,
Valdivia,
Chile
g
AGROSUPER,
Camino
La
Estrella
401,
Of
7,
Sector Punta
de
Cortes,
Rancagua,
Chile
h
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture,
Animal
and
Plant
Health
Inspection
Service,
International
Affairs
(USDA-APHIS-IS),
US
Embassy,
SES
Quadra
801,
Brasilia
70403-900,
Brazil
Agencia
Chilena
para
la
Inocuidad
y
Calidad
Alimentaria
(ACHIPIA),
Calle
Nueva
York
17,
4to
piso,
Santiago,
Chile
j
Escuela
de
Medicina
Veterinaria,
Facultad
de
Ecologia
y
Recursos
Naturales,
Universidad
Andres
Bello
(UNAB),
Republica
440,
Santiago,
Chile
CrossMark
ABSTRACT
This
paper
summarizes
the
gaps
and
challenges
related
to
animal
production,
health,
and
food
safety
as
discussed
by
a
panel
at
the
1st
International
Symposium
of
Food
Safety
(ISFS)
in
Santiago,
Chile,
in
December
2016.
Participating
representatives
of
academia,
industry,
and
government
and
statements
from
the
audience
confirmed
that
food
safety
is
essential
for
increasing
food
security.
First,
panelists
identified
the
need
for
a
science-based
regulatory
framework
to
implement
effective
regulations.
Second,
they
highlighted
the
importance
of
a
risk
analysis
framework
to
quantify
the
risk
of
the
potential
for
antimicrobial
resistance
associated
with
the
use
of
antimicrobials,
and
the
need
of
studies
to
evaluate
foodborne
prevention/control
strategies.
Third,
the
challenges
of
filling
the
gaps
between
industry
and
academia
were
addressed,
including
examples
of
successful
collaboration,
opportunities,
and
weakness
identified
by
industry.
Finally,
challenges
in
animal
food
production
included
issues
related
to
changing
consumer
preferences,
animal
welfare,
the
use
of
antimicrobials,
and
sustainable
animal
production.
The
symposium
provided
a
regional
platform
to
share
experiences
from
the
implementation
of
methods
and
approaches
for
food
safety.
The
roundtable
successfully
explored
the
future
science
and
technology
challenges
that
are
of
strategic
importance
for
Chile
and
the
region
in
animal
health
and
food
safety.
0
2017
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
ARTICLE INFO
Article
history:
Received
12
March
2017
Received
in
revised
form
4
October
2017
Accepted
6
October
2017
Available
online
12
October
2017
Keywords:
Animal
health
Food
safety
Policy
Food
production
Industry-academia
collaboration
Regulatory
science
1.
Introduction
A
panel
discussion
was
held
at
the
1st
International
Symposium
of
Food
Safety
(ISFS)
conference
in
Santiago
(Chile)
in
December
2016.
The
main
topic
of
the
ISFS
was
the
identification
of
new
tools
to
prevent
and
detect
foodborne
pathogens
from
farm
to
fork.
This
short
communication
describes
the
key
messages
resulting
from
this
discussion
panel,
specifically
gaps
and
challenges
for:
1)
the
role
of
animal
health
and
food
safety
regulations
in
animal
*
Corresponding
author.
E-mail
address:
fernando.mardones@unab.cl
(F.O.
Mardones).
https://doLorg/10.1016/j.fm.2017.10.004
0740-0020/©
2017
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
production,
2)
the
use
of
antimicrobials
in
animal
food
production,
3)
enhancing
collaboration
between
the
animal
food
industry
and
academia,
and
4)
challenges
in
animal
food
production
in
the
21st
century.
All
these
aspects
reflected
the
gaps
and
challenges
from
a
Chilean
context,
but
there
was
agreement
that
much
of
this
dis-
cussion
would
be
relevant
for
other
developing
countries
in
the
region.
The
authors
of
this
manuscript
were
members
of
the
panel
or
facilitators
thereof.
2.
Animal
production
in
Chile
Chile
has
a
unique
geography
occupying
a
narrow
strip
along
the
Pacific
coast
of
South
America
whose
width
at
maximum
reaches
R.
Marra
et
al.
/
Food
Microbiology
75
(2018)
114-118
115
only
420
km
(km)
and
extends
from
the
Atacama
Desert
in
the
north
to
Patagonian
rangeland
in
the
south
(4300
km).
Most
of
the
agricultural
activity
occurs
in
the
depression
between
the
Andes
and
lower
Coastal
range
running
parallel
the
Pacific
Ocean,
including
Mediterranean
and
template
climates
(FAO,
2006a).
Such
a
landscape
creates
natural
barriers
to
disease
transmission,
although
coastal
wetlands
with
migratory
birds
present
a
risk
for
disease
introduction
(Altizer
et
al.,
2011).
livestock
farming
is
concentrated
in
the
South
plains
and
Patagonia,
the
regions
rich
in
grasslands
and
pasture
(Oenema
et
al.,
2014).
The
husbandry
is
largely
pastoral,
with
low
livestock
densities
and
dispersed
herds,
which
also
reduces
the
risks
of
disease
spread.
Confined
poultry,
pig
meat
and
dairy
intensive
systems
exist
in
the
central
zone
and
intensive
dairying
is
also
present
in
the
southern
regions
(OECD,
2017).
The
livestock
sector
generates
37%
of
Chilean
agricultural
output
(OECD,
2016)
and
total
livestock
production
more
than
doubled
between
1990
and
2013
and
rose
by
almost
60%
in
per
capita
terms
(FAOSTAT,
2017).
The
sector's
exposure
to
trade
over
this
period
increased
considerably,
both
on
export
and
import
sides.
Chile
became
a
net
overall
exporter
of
livestock
products
in
the
2000s,
but
returned
to
net
imports
in
the
2010s
with
a
broad-
ening
negative
balance
(ODEPA,
2017).
Chile
has
traditionally
been
an
exporter
of
sheep
meat
and
wool
and
has
also
considerably
increased
net
exports
of
pig
meat
and
poultry
meat
since
the
early
2000s.
These
exports
are
destined
to
markets
with
different
con-
sumption
characteristics
and
sanitary
requirements
from
large
emerging
markets
such
as
China
and
Russia,
to
North
America
and
the
European
Union.
Chile
is
a
net
importer
of
beef
and
in
2015-16
it
was
also
net
importing
dairy
products.
A
good
sanitary
status
is
thus
important
for
Chile
to
both
minimize
domestic
market
risks
and
to
ensure
stable
access
to
export
markets.
Around
two-thirds
of
agricultural
establishments
in
Chile
undertake
some
livestock
ac-
tivity
(OECD,
2017).
The
cattle
and
sheep
sub-sectors
have
a
distinctly
dualistic
farm
structure
with
most
of
the
herds
concen-
trated
in
a
small
number
of
large
operations,
and
numerous
small
establishments
existing
alongside.
For
example,
almost
70%
of
the
total
sheep
number
is
concentrated
in
units
with
500
ha
and
more,
but
which
represent
only
2%
of
all
holdings
that
keep
sheep,
while
units
below
50
ha
constitute
around
80%
of
such
holdings.
The
presence
of
many
small
livestock
holders
in
these
industries
makes
them
important
as
a
constituency
to
be
targeted
by
animal
disease
policy.
The
dualistic
farm
structure
is
also
observed
in
poultry
and
pig
production.
However,
the
ownership
and
organization
of
these
industries
differ
significantly
from
the
bovine
and
sheep
sectors:
the
numerous
pig
and
poultry
establishments
are
typically
parts
of
integrated
businesses
that
are
owned
and
managed
by
the
same
operators
(OECD,
2017).
Today,
Chile
enjoys
a
favorable
animal
health
situation,
thanks
to
geographic
conditions
impeding
disease
transmission
and
decades
of
successful
work
on
disease
eradication
(OECD,
2017).
3.
Role
of
animal
health
and
food
safety
regulations
in
animal
production
Often
initiated
by
the
industry
and
discussed
by
academia,
an-
imal
health
and
food
safety
policies
are
ultimately
established
by
governments
to
put
into
place
a
system
of
controls
that
coopera-
tively
aim
to
assure
that
food
safety
standards
are
met
(Breckenridge
et
al.,
2011).
In
this
context,
regulations
and
stan-
dards
are
a
fundamental
part
of
the
food
control
system,
i.e.,
the
integration
of
a
mandatory
regulatory
approach
with
preventive
and
educational
strategies
that
ensures
food
safety
from
farm
to
table
(WHO
and
FAO,
2003).
The
modern
idea
of
food
control
places
direct
responsibility
for
ensuring
food
safety
on
all
operators
in
the
food
chain
(WHO,
2012).
The
main
challenge
identified
by
the
panelists
is
to
develop
and
implement
policies
that
effectively
ensure
a
safe
and
secure
food
supply
alongside
competitive
live-
stock,
poultry,
swine,
and
aquaculture
sectors
in
a
developing
country
such
as
Chile.
These
pressures
are
particularly
acute
for
smallholder
producers
given
the
increasing
concentration
and
intensification
of
agriculture,
livestock,
and
aquaculture
(FAO,
2005,
2009;
Oenema
et
al.,
2014).
Moreover,
for
countries
that
export,
such
as
Chile,
this
is
further
complicated
by
differing
regulations
among
importing
countries.
An
important
gap
identified
in
the
roundtable
was
the
lack
of
an
established
science-based
regulatory
framework
for
regulatory
science,
which
refers
broadly
to
the
scientific
and
technical
foun-
dations
upon
which
regulations
are
based
in
various
industries
-
particularly
those
involving
health
or
food
safety
(FDA,
2010).
Specifically,
the
discipline
of
regulatory
science
is
defined
as
the
development
of
new
tools,
standards
and
approaches
to
assess
the
safety,
efficacy,
quality
and
performance
of
regulated
products
(FDA,
2010).
Recent
breakthroughs
in
science
and
technology,
ranging
from
genomics
to
nanotechnology,
have
the
potential
to
transform
the
ability
to
prevent,
diagnose,
and
treat
animal
dis-
eases
(including
zoonotic
and
foodborne
diseases)
(Wang
et
al.,
2016).
For
these
advances
to
be
fully
realized,
regulators
must
play
a
growing
part
in
facilitating
the
integration
of
scientific,
public
health,
and
legal
frameworks
(Breckenridge
et
al.,
2011).
In
Chile,
an
important
aspect
associated
with
the
current
legislation
is
the
lack
of
scientific
knowledge
by
politicians
and
the
nonexistence
of
scientific
advisory
boards
(or
commissions),
often
resulting
in
rules
that
are
not
scientifically
sound
for
some
husbandry
practices
and/or
animal
health
management.
Panelists
emphasized
that
when
certain
foreign
policies
or
norms
are
implemented
to
the
national
industry,
they
establish
sample
sizes,
sampling
intervals
or
diagnostic
techniques
for
monitoring
a
hazard
in
which
no
tech-
nical
consideration
is
given
e.g.,
the
expected
prevalence
or
other
important
demographic
determinants.
One
panelist
referred
to
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulation
(CFR
)
of
the
United
States.
The
CFR
is
the
codification
of
the
general
and
permanent
rules
and
regulations
(sometimes
called
administrative
law)
published
in
the
Federal
Register
by
the
executive
de-
partments
and
agencies
of
the
federal
government
of
the
United
States.
In
brief,
authorities
publish
rules
that
establish
or
modify
the
way
they
regulate
items
such
as
food,
drugs,
and
biologics.
The
establishment
of
a
"bullet-proof"
regulation
relies
primarily
on
a
qualitative
risk
analysis
(FDA,
2006).
This
is
followed
by
a
period
of
public
input
and
carefully
considers
these
comments
when
it
draws
up
a
final
rule.
The
authority
gathers
public
comments
mainly
through
two
channels:
proposed
rules
and
petitions
(FDA,
2014).
The
panel
agreed
that
a
regulation
in
animal
health
and
food
safety
should
be
constructed
in
norms
or
guidelines
that
are
driven
or
actualized
by
science
and
with
demonstrated
capabilities
to
protect
public
and
animal
health.
The
establishment
of
effective
food
safety
systems
is
pivotal
in
ensuring
the
safety of
national
food
supplies,
and
food
products
for
regional
and
international
trade.
Decisions
on
animal
disease
interventions
should
be
made
in
the
context
of
the
general
state
of
the
economy
and
at
all
levels,
from
farms
to
the
government.
Therefore,
socio-economic
analysis
needs
to
be
part
of
animal
health
policy
development.
The
implementa-
tion
of
animal
health
policies
requires
strong
incentives
or
controls
in
the
field,
and
if
veterinary
interventions
are
provided
at
a
cost
that
is
proportionate
to
the
risk
and
the
economic
impact
of
dis-
ease,
there
are
no
conflicts
with
the
economic
(or
social)
interests
of
producers
or
farmers.
However,
interventions
can
become
'uneco-
nomical'
for
official
veterinary
services
as
well
as
for
individual
1
http://www.ecfr.govi
.
116
R.
Ibarra
et
al.
/
Food
Microbiology
75
(2018)
114-118
farmers
or
companies.
Developing
countries
increasingly
participate
in
the
global
trade
of
food
products,
a
surge
that
has
repercussions
on
the
design
and
implementation
of
their
national
food
policies
(Pinstrup-Andersen
and
Watson
II,
2011).
Despite
significant
advancements
in
the
development
of
domestic
food
policies,
developing
countries
often
experience
difficulties
in
conforming
to
the
regulatory
standards
set
by
developed
countries.
When
products
intended
for
the
mar-
kets
of
so-called
high-regulating
countries
-
most
importantly
the
United
States,
EU,
and
Japan
-
violate
regulations,
these
products
can
face
import
refusals,
bans,
or
be
destroyed.
Moreover,
China
has
become
a
relevant
actor
in
the
global
food
supply
chain
and
is
currently
developing,
strengthening
and
implementing
institutions
to
cope
with
international
standards
in
quality
and
sustainability
challenges.
However,
little
is
known
about
the
aspects
and
nature
of
the
Chinese
norms
related
to
food
safety
and
new
requirements
to
food
suppliers
and
exporting
countries
such
as
Chile.
4.
The
use
of
antimicrobials
in
animal
food
production
Another
concern
for
the
panelists
was
linked
to
the
use
of
an-
timicrobials
in
food-producing
animals
and
the
potential
for
the
development
of
resistance
in
human
pathogens
that
are
trans-
mitted
to
humans
via
animal-derived
food
(Landers
et
al.,
2012).
Antimicrobial
resistance
happens
when
microorganisms
(such
as
bacteria,
fungi,
viruses,
and
parasites)
change
when
they
are
exposed
to
antimicrobial
drugs
(such
as
antibiotics,
antifungals,
antivirals,
antimalarials,
and
anthelmintics)
(WHO,
2012).
New
resistance
mechanisms
are
emerging
and
spreading
globally,
threatening
our
ability
to
treat
common
infectious
diseases,
resulting
in
prolonged
illness,
disability,
and
death
(WHO,
2012).
Evidence
of
potential
public
harm
from
antimicrobial
resistance
is
growing
(Collignon
et
al.,
2016).
However,
the
risks
to
public
health
are
different
in
developed
and
developing
countries
and
between
actors
of
the
supply
chain
(producers,
processors,
retailers
and
consumers)
and
are
influenced
by
regulation,
monitoring,
and
compliance
(behaviors)
(Rich
et
al.,
2018).
Panelists
agreed
that
the
issues
of
antimicrobial
use
in
food
animals
are
of
global
concern.
However,
while
antibiotic
use
in
food
animals
may
represent
a
risk
to
human
health,
their
degree
and
relative
impact
have
not
been
well
characterized.
Given
divergent
stakeholder
interests
and
inadequate
research
to
date
about
this
topic,
public
policy
discussions
of
this
issue
are
often
contentious
and
highly
polarized
(Wernli
et
al.,
2017).
Panelists
identified
that
risk
analysis
-
risk
assessment,
risk
management,
and
risk
communication
-
is
a
critical
tool
to
integrate
science
and
risk
perceptions
at
all
levels.
In
risk
assessment,
sci-
entific
data
are
used
to
identify,
characterize,
and
measure
hazards;
assess
exposure;
and
characterize
risks
(WHO
and
FAO,
2009).
In
fact,
the
World
Organization
for
Animal
Health
(01E)
at
the
Terrestrial
and
Aquatic
Animal
Health
Codes
(Chapters
6)
provides
guidelines
for
risk
assessment
of
antimicrobial
resistance
arising
from
the
use
of
antimicrobials
in
animals
(01E,
2017a,
b).
The
principal
aim
of
risk
analysis
in
the
context
of
antimicrobial
resis-
tance
in
micro-organisms
from
animals
is
to
provide
OIE
members
with
a
transparent,
objective,
and
scientifically
defensible
method
to
assess
and
manage
the
human
and
animal
health
risks
associated
with
the
development
of
resistance
arising
from
the
use
of
anti-
microbials
in
animals.
Today,
several
disease
control
strategies
are
used
to
manage
diseases
in
farmed
animals
and
fish
including
the
use
of
screening
tests,
vaccines,
antibiotics,
dietary
supplements
and
restrictions,
early
removal
before
harvest,
etc.
(Christensen,
2001).
Each
disease
control
strategy
acts
at
a
different
stage
of
prevention
(primary,
secondary,
and
tertiary)
and
has
a
range
of
actions
by
different
stakeholders
such
as
the
type
of
diagnostic
tests
and
sampling
in-
tervals,
type
of
vaccine/antibiotic
used,
etc.,
that
ultimately
complicate
disease-controlling
decisions.
Panelists
agreed
that
more
studies
are
needed
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
each
preventive
and/or
control
strategies
that
ultimately
will
identify
the
combination
of
those
that
are
more
effective
under
field
con-
ditions.
Such
approach
is
crucial
and
should
define
a
more
sus-
tainable
yet
cost-effective
plan
to
control
diseases.
5.
Enhancing
collaboration
between
the
animal
food
industry
and
academia
Consensus
was
achieved
by
the
panelists
in
stating
that
food
safety
is
a
shared
responsibility.
Industry
is
responsible
and
held
accountable
for
sourcing
and
producing
safe
food
products
while
the
government
sets
policies
and
enforces
regulations
pertaining
to
food
safety
standards
in
production.
Academic
institutions
conduct
research,
teaching,
and
extension
to
promote
food
safety,
while
consumers
practice
proper
selection,
handling,
preparation,
and
serving
techniques.
Joint
efforts
between
research
universities
and
public
agencies
have
improved
understanding
on
control
and
eradication
of
many
animal
diseases
through
advances
in
veteri-
nary
medicine,
basic
and
applied
research,
educational
programs,
and
animal
housing
(National
Research
Council,
2005;
Breman
et
al.,
2011).
However,
without
effective
surveillance
systems,
even
eradicated
diseases
can
return.
Universities
and
industry
have
collaborated
for
over
a
century,
but
the
rise
of
a
global
knowledge
economy
has
intensified
the
need
for
strategic
partnerships
that
go
beyond
the
traditional
funding
of
discrete,
one-time
research
pro-
jects
(Perkmann
and
Walsh,
200')
).
Panelists
agreed
that
to
attract
industry
involvement,
university
programs
in
animal
health
and
food
safety
must
be
strongly
ori-
ented
to
the
needs
of
the
industry.
From
the
view
of
the
panelists,
most
local
universities
in
Chile
are
somewhat
passive
and
not
persistent
enough
in
developing
research
partnerships
with
the
sector.
There
is
a
perception
(and
fear)
that
investigators
carrying
out
research
with
a
company
or
sector
may
be
stigmatized
and
somewhat
biased
in
results
or
reporting.
Additionally,
the
time-
consuming
nature
of
most
research
activities
limits
obtaining
re-
sults
and/or
generating
innovation
in
the
short
term,
and
conse-
quently
it
is
not
an
alternative
to
provide
"real-time"
answers
and
in
reporting
results
relevant
to
producers.
Finally,
most
academic
institutions
are
rigid
from
an
administrative
viewpoint,
showing
difficulties
when
promulgating
contracts
or
agreements.
Panelists
agreed
that
work
is
needed
to
build
on
and
strengthen
mutual
agreements
entered
into
by
two
or
more
entities
across
academia
and
private
sectors
in
which
each
entity
provides
part
of
the
knowledge,
funds,
and/or
labor
toward
a
shared
interest
and
by
which
each
sector
benefits
in
the
outcome.
On
the
other
side,
companies
must
have
a
real
commitment
to
make
these
kinds
of
projects
work,
so
that
proposals
should
reflect
win-win
situation
for
both
parties
and
commitment
to
a
long-term
partnership.
According
to
the
panel,
the
food
industry
is
willing
to
promote
research.
In
fact,
one
panelist
mentioned
some
examples
of
applied
research
carried
out
through
private
institutes,
consul-
tancies,
or
experts.
However,
the
industry
appears
uncertain
about
sharing
research
data
and/or
research
results,
hindered
in
part,
by
practical
difficulties
or
legal
barriers.
In
principle,
the
sharing
of
data
and
research
materials
in
the
sciences
is
generally
accepted
as
a desirable
practice
by
much
of
the
scientific
community
(Evans,
2010).
Moreover,
publishing
research
in
scientific
journals
is
an
issue
because
while
academics
are
judged
by
publications,
competition
shapes
the
means
of
communication
and
sharing
in
the
private
sector,
but
in
a
different
way
and
for
different
reason.
In
business,
the
nature
of
ideas
conspires
against
their
marketing
R.
Marra
et
at
/
Food
Microbiology
75
(2018)
114-118
117
because
to
advertise
an
idea
is
to
give
it
away.
As
a
result,
com-
panies
compete
primarily
over
the
sale
of
products
and
services,
where
discoveries
represent
only
one
step
in
development.
Com-
panies
frequently
conceal
discoveries
to
develop
innovative
prod-
ucts
while
minimizing
competition.
However,
as
shown
previously
in
a
study
in
Chile
and
Colombia,
collaboration
with
universities
substantially
increased
the
propensity
of
firms
to
introduce
new
products
and
to
patent
(Marotta
et
al.,
2007).
Although
there
are
important
issues
regarding
sharing
data
and
information
with
the
private
sector,
working
with
universities
or
research
centers
can
improve
returns
as
demonstrated
by
world-class
research
univer-
sities
which
are
at
the
forefront
of
pioneering
such
partnerships
(e.g.,
Microsoft
-Cisco-Intel-University
of
Melbourne
;
BP's
Energy
Biosciences
Institute,
University
of
California,
Berkeley
;
GE
Global
Research
Munich
).
They
are
designed
to
run
longer,
invest
more,
look
farther
ahead
and
hone
the
competitiveness
of
companies,
universities
and
regions.
In
short,
they
transform
the
role
of
the
research
university
for
the
21st
century,
anchoring
it
as
a
vital
center
of
competence
to
help
tackle
social
challenges
and
drive
economic
growth.
Finally,
the
panel
identified
two
major
goals
needed
to
foster
an
industry-academia
collaborative
plan:
(a)
to
identify
and
fund
rigorous,
innovative,
and
multi-disciplinary
research
that
addresses
the
safety
of
animal
food
products
and
(b)
to
share
research
find-
ings
as
widely
and
quickly
as
possible
to
support
the
development
of
advanced
safeguards
within
the
food
animal
industry.
In
any
case,
collaboration
may
be
formal
or
informal,
from
formal
equity
partnerships,
contracts,
research
projects,
patent
licensing,
and
so
on,
to
human
capital
mobility,
publications,
and
interactions
in
conferences
and
expert
groups,
among
others
)•
6.
Challenges
in
the
animal
food
production
in
the
21st
century
Specialists
in
animal
health
not
only
allow
farmers
to
meet
the
growing
demand
for
animal
products
such
as
meat,
milk,
eggs,
and
fish
but
also
to
protect
consumers
from
harmful
food-borne
path-
ogens
or
diseases
transmissible
between
animals
and
people
(zoonoses).
At
the
same
time,
consumers
are
increasingly
drawing
connections
between
their
own
health
and
the
conditions
in
which
animals
are
raised
(Verbeke,
2009).
Panelists
agreed
that
consumer
preferences
have
changed
and
producers
need
to
adapt
to
new
requirements
particularly
in
the
following
four
issues:
listening
to
consumers,
using
antimicrobials,
animal
welfare,
and
environ-
mental
impact
and
sustainability.
Listening
to
(and
understanding)
the
consumers
is
a
key
chal-
lenge
identified
by
the
panelists.
There
is
growing
evidence
that
agriculture
is
a
big
factor
in
overall
ecosystem
health,
ensuring
a
stable
climate,
abundant
biodiversity
and
clean
water
(Koneswaran
and
Nierenberg,
2008).
Consumers
want
to
know
that
their
food
is
safe,
that
producers
care
about
the
environment,
and
are
willing
to
use
less
inputs
(e.g.,
water,
fuel,
soil,
etc.).
Consumers
certainly
want
to
know
that
producers
care
for
animals,
the
land,
and
the
envi-
ronment,
which
has
revealed
itself
in
growing
preferences.
Consumer
perceptions
and
knowledge
of
animal
welfare
vary
among
European
countries
and
are
mainly
affected
by
their
eco-
nomic
and
educational
level.
Some
of
the
aspects
related
to
welfare
include
the
availability
of
spaces
and
the
absence
of
movement
restrictions
(chains
or
tethers)
(Martelli,
2009).
In
this
sense,
the
2
http://www.socialnui.unimelb.edu.auipartnersi
.
3
http://www.energybiosciencesinstitute.orgi
.
4
http://www.geglobalresearch.comi
.
panel
agreed
that
it
is
important
to
know
consumer
attitudes
to-
ward
welfare
as
has
been
done
for
fish
farming
(Ellingsen
et
al.,
2015)
or
laying
hens
(Pettersson
et
al.,
2016).
Consumers
want
greater
transparency
about
the
animal
proteins
they
purchase
today.
The
reasons
for
greater
public
scrutiny
on
the
backstory
of
where
animal
proteins
come
from
(and
how
they
are
raised)
are
multidimensional,
relating
to
beliefs
about
diet,
ethics,
and
the
environment.
Regarding
the
use
of
antimicrobials,
panelists
highlighted
the
importance
of
antibiotics
in
improving
and
maintaining
animal
health
and
welfare
as
part
of
a
holistic
approach
to
minimizing
diseases.
In
the
future,
and
as
described
earlier,
producers
will
need
to
identify
new
products
and
strategies
to
combat
infectious
dis-
eases.
Today,
companies
are
being
urged
to
act
on
antibiotics
in
food
supply
chains
to
help
tackle
the
spread
of
untreatable
in-
fections
from
animals
to
humans.
However,
animals
should
be
treated with
antibiotics
as
and
when
is
necessary
-
and
when
this
reflects
a
diagnosis
from
a
qualified
veterinarian.
Consumer
concern
about
how
animals
raised
for
food
are
treated
is
rising,
particularly
in
Europe
and
the
USA
(Verbeke,
2009;
Lagerkvist
and
Hess,
2011).
Since
the
mid-1990s,
economists
have
sought
to
quantify
farm
animal
welfare
in
economic
terms
to
pro-
vide
inputs
for
analyzing
the
implications
of
animal production
systems
for
resource
use
and
food
costs.
Today,
international
standards
concerning
animal
welfare,
including
transport,
slaughter,
emergency
euthanasia,
aquaculture,
beef
cattle,
and
broilers,
have
been
produced
by
the
OIE
(01E,
2017a,
b).
Unfortu-
nately,
the
current
OIE
standards
do
not
provide
a
framework
for
defining
the
welfare
standards
of
livestock
products
so
it
is
difficult
for
the
food
industry
to
trade
products
with
a
definable
welfare
status
when
different
countries
use
different
private
certification
schemes.
For
these
reasons,
panelists
agreed
that
animal
welfare
is
an
important
challenge
for
the
future
in
establishing
science-based
metrics
of
animal
welfare
as
a
means
of
identifying
best
manage-
ment
practices
and
providing
certified
products.
A
key
challenge
is
how
animal
food
industries
will
provide
food
to
a
human
population
of
9.6
billion
by
mid-2050
at
the
same
time
that
they
will
use
farming
techniques
that
protect
the
environment,
public
health,
human
communities,
and
animal
welfare.
For
this,
the
animal
production
system
was
envisioned
in
its
broadest
sense,
from
the
individual
farm,
to
the
local
ecosystem,
and
to
commu-
nities
affected
by
the
farming
system
both
locally
and
globally.
Systems
approaches
also
imply
interdisciplinary
efforts
in
research
and
education.
This
requires
not
only
the
input
of
researchers
from
various
disciplines,
but
also
farmers,
farmworkers,
consumers,
policymakers,
and
others.
The
interconnectedness
of
individual,
regional,
and
global
public
health;
the
health
of
the
planetary
en-
vironment(s);
and
billions
of
food
animals
and
wildlife
would
suggest
the
need
for
a
new
paradigm
-
one
that
shifts
away
from
a
reactive
to
a
more
anticipatory,
proactive
approach
to
food
safety
(IOM,
2012).
A
"One
Health"
approach
to
food
safety
-
which
has
been
defined
as
"the
collaborative
effort
of
multiple
disciplines
-
working
locally,
nationally,
and
globally
-
to
attain
optimal
health
for
people,
animals
and
the
environment"
might
capture
these
critical
needs
(Page
13,
AVMA,
2008;
Wall,
2014).
7.
Conclusions
There
was
significant
value
in
a
forum
like
ISFS
to
share
the
experiences
of
the
successful
implementation
of
methods
and
ap-
proaches
for
food
safety
as
well
as
to
show
projects
and
initiatives
from
industry-academia
collaboration
in
the
food
sector.
The
roundtable
was
an
innovative
opportunity
to
discuss
the
top-level
priorities
for
forthcoming
initiatives
for
the
industry,
academia
and
government.
We
have
identified
major
challenges
that
could
be
118
R.
Ibarra
et
al.
/
Food
Microbiology
75
(2018)
114-118
addressed
by
future
collaborative
activities
in
key
areas
such
as
"regulatory
science",
"frameworks
for
risk
analysis",
"evaluation
of
antimicrobial
resistance
and
use
of
antibiotics",
"animal
welfare",
"environmental
sustainability"
and
"One
Health".
Future
organizers
of
ISFS
conferences
should
not
only
include
presentations
of
tech-
nically
complex
studies,
but
also
report
on
their
practical
applica-
tions
and
their
effectiveness.
As
well
as
sharing
'best
practices',
failures
should
be
communicated
openly
as
they
are
likely
to
pro-
vide
essential
lessons.
Sessions
that
illustrate
how
scientific
find-
ings
were
translated
into
progress
in
preventing
food-borne
pathogens
and
controlling
disease
would
be
welcome.
New
inno-
vative
research
mechanisms
can
help
transforming
Chile's
econ-
omy
and
society
as
a
whole.
Acknowledgments
This
collaborative
manuscript
is
an
output
from
a
roundtable
held
in
Santiago,
Chile
on
December
7th,
2016
and
sponsored
by
the
Organisation
for
Economic
Co-operation
and
Development
(OECD)
Co-operative
Research
Programme
on
Biological
Resource
Man-
agement
for
Sustainable
Agricultural
Systems,
whose
financial
support
made
it
possible
for
some
of
the
invited
speakers
to
attend.
References
Altizer,
S.,
Bartel,
R.,
Han,
BA,
2011.
Animal
migration
and
infectious
disease
risk.
Science
331,
296-302.
AVMA,
2008.
One
health:
a
new
professional
imperative.
One
health
initiative
task
force:
final
report.
76
p.
Breckenridge,
A.,
Feldschreiber,
P.,
Gregor,
S.,
Raine,
J.,
Mulcahy,
L.A.,
2011.
Evolution
of
regulatory
frameworks.
Nat.
Rev.
Drug
Discov.
10,
3-4.
Breman,
J.G.,
de
Quadros,
CA.,
Dowdle,
W.R.,
Foege,
W.H.,
Henderson,
D.A.,
John,
Tj.,
Levine,
M.M.,
2011.
The
role
of
research
in
viral
disease
eradication
and
elimi-
nation
programs:
lessons
for
malaria
eradication.
PLoS
Med.
8.
Christensen,
J.,
2001.
Epidemiological
concepts
regarding
disease
monitoring
and
surveillance.
Acta
Vet.
Scand.
11-16.
Collignon,
P.C.,
Conly,
J.M.,
Andremont,
A.,
McEwen,
S.A.,
Aidara-Kane,
A.,
World
Health
Organization
Advisory
Group,
Bogota
Meeting
on
Integrated
Surveil-
lance
of
Antimicrobial
Resistance
(WHO-AGISAR),
2016.
World
Health
Organi-
zation
ranking
of
antimicrobials
according
to
their
importance
in
human
medicine:
a
critical
step
for
developing
risk
management
strategies
to
control
antimicrobial
resistance
from
food
animal
production.
Clin.
Infect.
Dis.
63,
1087-1093.
Ellingsen,
K.,
Grimsrud,
K.,
Nielsen,
H.M.,
Mejdell,
C.,
Olesen,
I.,
Honkanen,
P.,
Navrud,
S.,
Gamborg,
C.,
Sandoe,
P.,
2015.
Who
cares
about
fish
welfare?
A
Norwegian
study.
Br.
Food
J.
117,
257-273.
Evans,
JA,
2010.
Industry
collaboration,
scientific
sharing,
and
the
dissemination
of
knowledge.
Soc.
Stud.
Sci.
40,
757-791.
FAO,
2005.
National
aquaculture
sector
overview:
Chile.
http://www.fao.org/
fishery/countrysectorinaso_chile/en
(accessed
3
April
2017).
FAO,
2006a.
In:
Reynolds,
S.G.
(Ed.),
Country
Pasture/Forage
Resource
Profiles:
Chile,
20p.
FAO,
2009.
Evolucion
de
la
agricultura
familiar
campesina
en
Chile
en
el
periodo
1997-2007.
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations
(FAO).
FAOSTAT,
2017.
Production
indices.
www.fao.org/faostatien/#data
(accessed
3
April
2017).
FDA,
2006.
FDA
guidance
for
industry:
Q9
quality
risk
management.
http://www
.
fda.govicderiguidance/index.htm
(accessed
11
May
2017).
FDA,
2010.
Advancing
regulatory
science
for
public
health.
A
framework
for
FDA's
regulatory
science
initiative.
https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/Special
Topics/RegulatoryScience/ucm228131.htm
(accessed
15
June
2017).
FDA,
2014.
Comment
on
proposed
regulations
and
submit
petitions.
https://www
.
fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Dockets/Comments/default.htm%3Futm_source
%3Drss%26utm_medium%3Drss%26utm_campaign%3Dcomment-on-proposed-
regulations-and-submit-petitions
(accessed
15
June
2017).
Hagedoorn,
J.,
Link,
A.N.,
Vonortas,
N.S.,
2000.
Research
partnerships.
Res.
Policy
29,
567-586.
IOM,
2012.
Improving
Food
Safety
through
a
One
Health
Approach:
Workshop
Summary.
Institute
of
Medicine
of
the
United
States.
National
Academies
Press,
Washington,
DC.
Koneswaran,
G.,
Nierenberg,
D.,
2008.
Global
farm
animal
production
and
global
warming:
impacting
and
mitigating
climate
change.
Environ.
Health
Perspect.
116,
578-582.
Iagerkvist,
CJ.,
Hess,
S.,
2011.
A
meta-analysis
of
consumer
willingness
to
pay
for
farm
animal
welfare.
Eur.
Rev.
Agric.
Econ.
38,
55-78.
Landers,
T.F.,
Cohen,
B.,
Wittum,
T.E.,
Larson,
E.L,
2012.
A
review
of
antibiotic
use
in
food
animals:
perspective,
policy,
and
potential.
Public
Health
Rep.
127,
4-22.
Marotta,
D.,
Mark,
M.,
Blom,
A.,
Thorn,
K.,
2007.
Human
Capital
and
University-
Industry
Linkages'
Role
in
Fostering
Firm
Innovation:
an
Empirical
Study
of
Chile
and
Colombia.
Policy
Research
Working
Paper.
World
Bank,
Washington,
DC.
Martelli,
G.,
2009.
Consumers'
perception
of
farm
animal
welfare:
an
Italian
and
European
perspective.
Ital.].
Anim.
Sci.
8,
31-41.
National
Research
Council,
2005.
Animal
Health
at
the
Crossroads:
Preventing,
Detecting,
and
Diagnosing
Animal
Diseases.
The
National
Academies
Press,
Washington,
DC.
ODEPA,
2017.
Balanza
historica
de
productos
silvoagropecuarios
por
sector.
http://
www.odepa.gob.cl/balanza-de-productos-historica/
(accessed
3
April
2017).
OECD,
2016.
Chile.
In:
Agricultural
Policy
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
2016.
OECD
Publishing,
Paris,
pp.
1-10.
OECD,
2017.
Case
study
in
livestock
disease
management:
Chile.
In:
Producer
In-
centives
in
Livestock
Disease
Management.
OECD
Publishing,
Paris,
pp.
119-138.
Oenema,
0.,
de
Klein,
C.,
Alfaro,
M.,
2014.
Intensification
of
grassland
and
forage
use:
driving
forces
and
constraints.
Crop
Pasture
Sci.
65,
524-537.
OIE,
2017a.
Aquatic
Animal
Health
Code,
twentieth
ed.
Paris.
OIE,
2017b.
Terrestrial
Animal
Health
Code,
26
th
edition.
Paris.
Perkmann,
M.,
Walsh,
K.,
2007.
University-industry
relationships
and
open
inno-
vation:
towards
a
research
agenda.
Int.
J.
Manag.
Rev.
9,
259-280.
Pettersson,
LC.,
Weeks,
CA,
Wilson,
LR.M.,
Nicol,
CJ.,
2016.
Consumer
perceptions
of
free-range
laying
hen
welfare.
Br.
Food
J.
118,
1979-1993.
Pinstrup-Andersen,
P.,
Watson
II,
D.D.,
2011.
Food
Policy
for
Developing
Countries:
the
Role
of
Government
in
Global,
National,
and
Local
Food
Systems.
Cornell
University
Press,
Ithaca,
United
States,
392
p.
Rich,
K.M.,
Dizyee,
K.,
Huyen
Nguyen,
T.T.,
Ha
Duong,
N.,
Hung
Pham,
V.,
Nga
Nguyen,
T.D.,
Unger,
F.,
Lapar,
M.L,
2018.
Quantitative
value
chain
approaches
for
animal
health
and
food
safety.
Food
Microbiol.
75,
103-113.
Verbeke,
W.,
2009.
Stakeholder,
citizen
and
consumer
interests
in
farm
animal
welfare.
Anim.
Welf.
18,
325-333.
Wall,
P.,
2014.
One
Health
and
the
food
chain:
maintaining
safety
in
a
globalised
industry.
Vet.
Rec.
174,
189-192.
Wang,
S.Y.,
Weller,
D.,
Falardeau,
J.,
Strawn,
LK.,
Mardones,
F.O.,
Adell,
A.D.,
Swift,
A.I.M.,
2016.
Food
safety
trends:
from
globalization
of
whole
genome
sequencing
to
application
of
new
tools
to
prevent
foodborne
diseases.
Trends
Food
Sci.
Tech.
57,
188-198.
Wernli,
D.,
Jorgensen,
P.S.,
Harbarth,
S.,
Carroll,
S.P.,
Iaxminarayan,
R.,
Levrat,
N.,
Rottingen,
J.A.,
Pittet,
D.,
2017.
Antimicrobial
resistance:
the
complex
challenge
of
measurement
to
inform
policy
and
the
public.
PLoS
Med.
14.
WHO
and
FAO,
2003.
Assuring
Food
Safety
and
Quality:
Guidelines
for
Strength-
ening
National
Food
Control
Systems.
World
Health
Organization
and
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization,
Rome.
WHO
and
FAO,
2009.
Food
Safety
Risk
Analysis:
a
Guide
for
National
Food
Safety
Authorities.
FAO
food
and
nutrition
paper,
87.
World
Health
Organization
and
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization,
Rome.
WHO,
2012.
Developing
and
Implementing
a
National
Food
Safety
Policy
and
Strategic
Plan.
World
Health
Organization
Regional
Office
for
Africa,
Brazzaville,
47
p.