Introduction

1. Australia's international and domestic reputation for producing high quality food is supported by a 2008 international study that ranked Australia fourth in the world for food safety performance.^[1] Australian consumers expect that governments, producers and suppliers will maintain the safety of food and ensure its quality and availability whether it is domestically produced or imported.

2. Food regulation is an important public function for the primary purpose of avoiding food borne illnesses, and the associated costs for individuals and the community. These costs include medical costs, lost productivity, business disruptions resulting from food recalls, decreased sales and possible legal costs. A Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) report in March 2006 estimated that the total annual cost, in 2004 prices, of food–borne illnesses was $1.2 billion.

3. Food regulation in Australia and New Zealand is designed to provide: an effective, transparent and accountable regulatory framework within which the food industry can work efficiently; the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and the establishment of common rules and harmonisation between domestic and international food regulatory measures while maintaining public health and protecting consumers.^[2]

Australia and New Zealand: a bi-national approach

4. Australia and New Zealand harmonised food standards in 1983 as part of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. In 1995 the Joint Food Standards Treaty between Australia and New Zealand committed both countries to a single set of food standards and a bi national agency, then the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, to develop those standards.

5. In November 2000, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a new food regulatory system in response to the recommendations of the Food Regulation Review (the Blair Report). The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act, 1991 (FSANZ Act) was consequently amended in 2001 to reflect the new co operative bi-national system for food regulation. The amendments also established Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) as the new statutory authority to develop and maintain food standards for the production, processing and sale of food in, or from, Australia and New Zealand.

Food Standards Australia New zealand

6. FSANZ is an Australian Commonwealth statutory authority established under the FSANZ Act. It is part of the Australian Government's Health and Ageing portfolio with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing having portfolio responsibility.

7. FSANZ has offices in Canberra and Wellington, New Zealand and employs 145 staff in multi disciplinary teams. FSANZ's total revenue for 2009 10 was $22.5 million.

8. FSANZ's role is to provide expert advice on food based on the best available science. It develops and varies food standards to be included in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Code) which are approved by the FSANZ Board and subject to review by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council). When it develops or amends food standards, FSANZ must have regard to Ministerial Council policy.

9. The Ministerial Council comprises Health Ministers from all Australian States and Territories, the Australian and New Zealand Governments, as well as other Ministers from related portfolios where these have been nominated by their jurisdictions. Once the Ministerial Council process is finalised, the variations to the Standards are gazetted and then automatically adopted by reference under food legislation of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Australian States and Territories and New Zealand.

10. Although FSANZ develops food standards, responsibility for ensuring compliance with these standards for domestically produced or imported food rests with local government and State and Territory Governments in Australia and the New Zealand Government.

11. FSANZ may conduct scientific research in support of its own proposals but it does not conduct scientific research for paid or unpaid applications. Consequently, it requires applicants to provide data to support their applications. The quality of this data is important to FSANZ to support its risk assessments and for accountability purposes because stakeholders need to know the extent to which they can rely on the data that underpins FSANZ's food regulations.

12. FSANZ has a range of other functions under the FSANZ Act including facilitating harmonisation of State and Territory laws relating to food, and national coordination of food surveillance, incidents and recalls.

Developing and amending food standards

13. Section 18 of the FSANZ Act sets out FSANZ's objectives (in descending priority order) in developing food regulatory measures and variations of food regulatory measures as:

• the protection of public health and safety; and
• the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and
• the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct.^[3]

14. When FSANZ develops or amends a standard it must meet these legislated objectives.

15. Food standards are developed or amended in response to applications by a body or person, and proposals developed by FSANZ.

16. Applications are subject to a two part assessment process to determine whether: the application is accepted;^[4] and a standard should be developed or amended,^[5] both of which have legislated timeframes.^[6] FSANZ must commence consideration for paid applications as soon as a fee is paid which, in practice, results in compression of the timeframe between the two parts of the assessment process.

17. FSANZ develops its own proposals to address: major clarification, corrections or reviews of the Code; changes to COAG or Government policy (for example, removing trade restrictions); a policy guideline from the Ministerial Council or Food Regulation Standing Committe; and public submissions.^[7]

18. The FSANZ Act provides that FSANZ must develop a three year forward plan including all applications and proposals, and that paid applications ‘must not' displace unpaid applications or proposals listed on that plan.

Regulated timeframes

19. The FSANZ Act specifies the objectives FSANZ must meet when it develops and amends food standards. While the focus is on satisfying consumer protection matters, FSANZ must also have regard to ‘the desirability of an efficient and internationally competitive food industry'.^[8]

20. The main aim of the 2007 legislative reforms was to streamline FSANZ's application procedures and enhance the efficiency of the regulatory process. Under the previous legislation, all applications received by FSANZ were subject to the same processing requirements, regardless of their complexity. The 2007 legislative amendments introduced processes which reduced legislated timeframes for most applications.

21. Previous legislative changes were to allow an applicant to pay a fee for FSANZ to develop or amend a standard that could give the applicant a competitive advantage. An applicant may also pay a fee to expedite the consideration of an application. The legislative changes that have been introduced since 2000 are designed to enable industry to have its applications dealt with more rapidly and to overcome what was seen as an impediment to an efficient and competitive food industry.

Cost-model

22. FSANZ charges fees for applications based on the expected consideration period^[9] at the determined level of complexity. For the three years from 2007 08 to 2009 10, FSANZ received $1.669 million in fees for paid applications which comprised 2.8 per cent, 1.8 per c ent, and 3 per cent respectively of FSANZ's revenue. In the same period, paid applications accounted for 94 per cent of the food standards that had been incorporated into the Code.

23. As well as processing applications, FSANZ staff regularly spends additional time providing pre application guidance and ongoing advice to assist in the preparation of applications with further advice provided if the application is initially incomplete or rejected. Although this contributes to a successful relationship with the applicant and applications meeting FSANZ's requirements, the additional time is not included in the fee, so is not recoverable.

Audit objectives and scope

Objective

24. The objective of the audit was to assess FSANZ's administration of its food standard functions, as specified in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act, 1991 (last amended 2007).

25. Particular emphasis was given to whether:

• FSANZ's performance management and reporting provided effective support and ensures accountability;
• FSANZ effectively administered its food standard development and variation function, including its stakeholder management; and
• FSANZ effectively monitored the implementation of its standards and coordinates relevant jurisdictions to address market failures.

Scope

26. The scope of the audit included FSANZ's: development and amendment of food standards; coordination and surveillance activities; coordination of food incidents and recalls; provision of information to consumers; and supporting corporate processes. The scope of this audit did not include the bodies primarily involved in food regulation policy or the bodies responsible for the implementation, compliance and enforcement of the standards.

Methodology

27. In order to form an opinion against the audit objective the ANAO: examined policy documents, guidelines, procedures, operational documents and reports; stakeholder surveys, files, records, systems and publications; and interviewed FSANZ staff and the Board Chair.

28. To determine whether regulated timeframes had been met the ANAO also reviewed and analysed: 16 proposals (the oldest had commenced in 2002) included on the February 2010 Food Standards Development Work Plan; and all of the 47 applications that had undergone an initial assessment, received by FSANZ between 1 October 2007 and 30 June 2010.

29. To determine whether applications had met FSANZ's mandatory requirements, the ANAO also reviewed the information provided by applicants to support 15 applications, and the relevant assessment reports produced by FSANZ. Ten of these applications were accepted and five were rejected after completion of the first part of FSANZ's two part assessment process.

30. The audit forms part of the ANAO's strategic focus on regulators within the Health and Ageing portfolio.

Overall conclusion

31. Over time, Australian and New Zealand Governments have committed to reducing the regulatory burden on businesses within the food industry, without compromising public health and safety. Recent amendments to food legislation have focused on maximising the efficiency of processing applications to change or amend the joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) and avoiding unnecessary compliance costs, while protecting consumers. In this environment, the role of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is to develop food standards (regulations) based on the best available scientific evidence which FSANZ requires applicants to provide for paid and unpaid applications. FSANZ has advised that it researches and collates available evidence when it develops a proposal.

32. FSANZ is a relatively small agency operating in a complex multi jurisdictional environment and has used the resources available to it to meet most of its key responsibilities and, over time, complete a large component of its annual work program. Although FSANZ actively engages stakeholders, there is a broad range of views held by FSANZ's stakeholders as to the direction and appropriateness of food standards. Against this background, an important consideration for FSANZ is being able to report more fully on its effectiveness in developing food standards including:

• developing performance indicators to identify: FSANZ's contribution to its single Outcome: a safe food supply and well-informed consumers in Australia and New Zealand;
• documenting how FSANZ takes into consideration its legislative objectives when it develops or amends food standards; and
• the approach being taken by FSANZ to manage a recognised non compliance issue, that is, the processing of paid versus unpaid applications and proposals using FSANZ's current resources.

33. FSANZ also has a role in monitoring food standards across Australia and, given that this function is undertaken in consultation with the Australian jurisdictions, FSANZ has successfully managed its coordination role including: coordinating the collection of data on monitoring and surveillance activities; coordinating responses to major food incidents; and developing stakeholder education activities.

Performance indicators

34. In planning to meet its overall Outcome, FSANZ operates in an environment where consumer and industry groups hold different views on the degree of regulation required in the food industry. In addition, the multi jurisdictional nature of FSANZ's operating environment requires it to work with a range of entities, including State and Territory food regulation enforcement agencies.

35. In order to progress the achievement of its intended Outcome, a priority for FSANZ is to manage these strategic relationships and associated risks. Currently, FSANZ's effectiveness measures for its Outcome focus on one of its three Major Activities: Effective evidence-based food standards. For FSANZ to be in a position to determine its contribution to a safe food supply and well informed consumers, it should develop and make use of appropriate effectiveness indicators for its other two Major Activities: Protect health and safety, and Citizen and stakeholder engagement. The resulting measures would assist in conveying FSANZ's role more effectively to stakeholders and provide a basis for a better understanding of the progress being made in achieving its Outcome.

Setting food standards: FSANZ's consideration of legislative objectives

36. To progress its overall Outcome, FSANZ must meet its legislated objectives when it develops or amends food standards. These are set out in section 18 of the FSANZ Act: ‘the protection of public health and safety; and the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct'. While FSANZ advised that it does take into account its legislated objectives when it considers applications and proposals, information on how the objectives were considered is not included in FSANZ's assessment reports.

37. An approach for FSANZ to demonstrate how it meets its legislated objectives when it develops food regulatory measures would be to include more explicit information in its assessment reports for all applications and proposals that explains how the three objectives were considered. Monitoring and reporting how FSANZ's three objective were considered at the application and proposal level could then be consolidated to enable broader reporting against FSANZ's Outcome, and be an effective way of communicating to stakeholders the breadth of work that is involved in setting food standards.

Setting food standards: FSANZ's approach to prioritisation

38. Over time, the Australian Government has committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses and not-for-profit organisations within the food industry, without compromising public health and safety. Changes to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act, 1991 (FSANZ Act) in 2007 reflected this approach and made provision for applicants to pay a fee if they wished to expedite the consideration of an application. These changes to the FSANZ Act were designed to enable industry to have its applications dealt with more rapidly and to promote an efficient and internationally competitive food industry.

39. However, the FSANZ Act also requires that assessment of paid applications must not displace the development of, or variation to, any other food regulatory measure in a three year plan (Work Plan). This requirement means that FSANZ must respond in a timely way to paid applications, while not compromising its ability to respond to unpaid applications or to generate its own proposals to develop or amend food standards.

40. Of the 48^[10] applications received between 1 October 2007 and 30 June 2010, FSANZ met the timeframe to assess whether to accept or reject the application. The timeframe for FSANZ to subsequently consider an application was met for nine paid applications, with five of these being completed one month or more ahead of schedule. Of the 12 paid applications that were not finalised, three were already exceeding the planned timeframe. Over the same period, FSANZ delayed the commencement of two unpaid applications and three proposals, and had commenced consideration for only one of the 14 unpaid applications received.

41. This trend highlights that FSANZ manages its Work Plan by prioritising paid applications, followed by unpaid applications and proposals.

42. FSANZ has advised that although resource constraints have limited its ability to meet the legislated requirement that paid applications must not displace other food regulatory measures in its three year Work Plan, it now identifies in each Work Plan any applications or proposals that have been displaced by paid applications. FSANZ also advised that it intends to report in future annual reports its compliance against this requirement which will improve the transparency associated with FSANZ's prioritisation of its Work Plan.

43. As indicated above, the capacity for FSANZ to suitably balance competing priorities is influenced by its resourcing and approach to prioritisation. Whereas FSANZ receives very little of its income from paid applications, the bulk of its standards setting between 2007 08 and 2009 10, resulted from paid applications.^[11] While all government agencies need to balance their priorities with respect to available resources, any underlying reasons for not being able to consistently comply with legislative requirements should be examined. Many factors can influence an agency's performance, including workload, how resources are allocated to different functions and the productivity achieved. Understanding these factors would better position FSANZ to assess its current approach and, as necessary, discuss its resourcing with government and stakeholders.

44. FSANZ has stated that owing to resource constraints, it has also considerably reduced its evaluation capability in terms of staff and activity. FSANZ uses reviews and evaluations to identify gaps in the Code and assess the effectiveness of existing standards. Generally, proposals were developed to address these gaps and also allow FSANZ to set standards that may better address their legislated objectives rather than relying on the particular interests of each applicant. FSANZ has not yet assessed whether this reduction in evaluation capability at the individual standard level will affect its evidence base and risk assessments when introducing new food standards.

Monitoring food standards: FSANZ's approach to addressing market failures

45. As well as it role in setting food standards, FSANZ has a number of additional functions including: coordinating the collection of data on monitoring and surveillance activities; coordinating responses to major food incidents; coordinating food recalls; and developing stakeholder education activities. While FSANZ is generally effective when it carries out these additional functions, there are some matters outside of FSANZ's control that impact on the success of these activities.

46. An important role of FSANZ is to coordinate and monitor food recalls within Australia in consultation with health authorities from the affected state/s and territory/s and the relevant sponsor (usually the product's manufacturer or importer). Two trade recalls conducted by the affected states and coordinated by FSANZ in 2009 raised concerns. In these two instances sponsors reported that 55 per cent and 70 per cent of the potentially infected products were not recovered from retail outlets because they could not be traced, so may have been available to consumers.

47. FSANZ is working through food incident and recall protocols to address traceability issues to prevent further products entering the market in similar circumstances. In the interim, FSANZ could consider how it would address recalls of a similar nature should they arise. This is particularly important because the information that FSANZ provides to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) was used to satisfy the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs^[12] that recalls have been conducted satisfactorily and that consumers are protected.

Key findings

Planning, risk management and performance information (Chapter 2)

48. FSANZ's stakeholder surveys have identified a number of strategic risks including differing views on FSANZ's role and responsibilities. FSANZ has recognised that a key risk is meeting the diverse and sometimes divergent expectations of consumers, food businesses and public health groups. Accordingly it has identified stakeholder relationships as a strategic imperative, including developing appropriate performance measures, in its 2009 12 Corporate Plan. Such measures will assist FSANZ to place a greater emphasis on managing risks at the strategic level.

49. FSANZ's program and major activities are intended to produce a stated Outcome including a safe food supply and well-informed consumers in Australia and New Zealand. An effective program is one that makes a difference in meeting this Outcome. Currently, FSANZ's effectiveness measures for its outcome focus on one major activity: Effective evidence-based food standards. However, FSANZ has not developed effectiveness measures for its two other major activities: Protect health and safety and Citizen and stakeholder engagement.

50. In seeking to measure the performance of its program, FSANZ faces the challenge of determining the specific contribution that its program makes towards the achievement of broader government outcomes. Given that a range of factors affect public health and safety, only some of which are under the control of, or subject to the influence of, FSANZ, it is appropriate for FSANZ to consider a range of supplementary measures to help explain its contribution to broader government outcomes. Such measures include the use of contextual trends and, although not as timely, information obtained through evaluations.

51. Historically, FSANZ has used reviews and evaluations to identify gaps in the Code and assess the effectiveness of existing standards. Generally, proposals were developed to address these gaps. Proposals also allow FSANZ to set standards that may better address its legislated objectives rather than relying on the particular interests of each applicant. However, owing to limited resources, FSANZ has considerably reduced its evaluation capability in terms of staff and activity. FSANZ has not yet determined whether this reduction in evaluation capability at the individual standard level will affect its evidence base and risk assessments when introducing new food standards.

Setting food standards (Chapter 3)

52. In developing food regulatory measures and variations of food regulatory measures, FSANZ must meet the legislated objectives set out in section 18 of the FSANZ Act which in priority order are: (1) the protection of public health and safety; (2) the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and (3) the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct.

53. The ANAO reviewed the assessment reports for 15 applications that FSANZ had assessed against the legislated objectives. The results for the 15 applications were that: four did not address any objectives; 12 did not address all or part of Objective 1; seven did not address Objective 2; and none of the applications addressed Objective 3.

54. Overall, FSANZ's assessment reports did not document an explicit consideration of how the agency took into account the objectives of the FSANZ Act when it developed or amended a food standard.

55. An approach for FSANZ to demonstrate how it meets its legislated objectives when it develops food regulatory measures is to include more explicit information in its assessment reports for all applications and proposals that explains how the three objectives were considered. Monitoring and reporting how FSANZ's three objectives were considered at the application and proposal level could then be consolidated to enable broader reporting against FSANZ's Outcome and be an effective way of communicating to stakeholders the breadth of work that is involved in setting food standards.

56. FSANZ has developed the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Application Handbook (the Application Handbook) to assist it to meet its legislative obligations including assessment against the legislated objectives. The Application Handbook is also used to inform applicants of the requirements that must be met for an application to be accepted and for FSANZ to develop or amend a standard.

57. Data quality is important to FSANZ internally to support its risk assessments and externally for accountability purposes. This is because stakeholders need to know the extent to which they can rely on the data that underpins FSANZ's food regulations. However, the required supporting data was often not provided by the applicants; and FSANZ did not consistently document whether the requirements were met.

58. FSANZ has a number of committees and reference groups that contribute to the standards setting process. FSANZ also invites submissions from interested parties as part of the standard setting process to allow for comments that it states will be taken into account for the final assessments. The expert groups contribute directly to the standards setting process. The composition of the committees and reference groups also assists FSANZ to manage, in part, varying stakeholder views.

Meeting regulated timeframes (Chapter 4)

59. Over time, the Australian Government has committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses and not-for-profit organisations within the food industry, without compromising public health and safety.

60. One of the recent legislative changes was to allow an applicant to pay a fee for FSANZ to develop or amend a standard that could give the applicant a competitive advantage. An applicant may also pay a fee to expedite the consideration of an application. These changes were designed to enable industry to have its applications dealt with more rapidly and to overcome what was seen as an impediment to an efficient and competitive food industry.

61. However, the FSANZ Act also requires that assessment of paid applications must not displace the development of, or variation to, any other food regulatory measure in a three year plan (Work Plan).

62. Against these requirements, FSANZ met the timeframe to assess whether to accept or reject all of the 48 applications received between 1 October 2007 and 30 June 2010. The timeframe for FSANZ to consider an application was met for nine paid applications with five of these being completed one month or more ahead of schedule. Of the 12 paid applications that were not finalised, three were already exceeding the planned timeframe. Only one of the 14 unpaid applications received in the same period had commenced assessment.

63. This trend highlights that FSANZ prioritises industry applications over proposals. Industry applications are also further prioritised if a fee is paid.

64. FSANZ has advised that it now identifies in its Work Plan, any applications or proposals that have been ‘displaced' by paid applications and that it intends to report in future annual reports its compliance against the requirement that paid applications must not displace the development of any other food regulatory measure in its Work Plan.

Monitoring standards and addressing market failures (Chapter 5)

65. As well as its role in setting food standards, FSANZ has a number of additional functions including: coordinating the collection of data on monitoring and surveillance activities; coordinating responses to major food incidents; coordinating food recalls; and developing stakeholder education activities. FSANZ conducts these activities for Australia only and, while FSANZ is generally effective when it carries out these additional activities, there are some matters outside of FSANZ's control that impact on the success of these activities.

66. FSANZ's collection of food surveillance data from public health units is difficult to analyse and will remain so until the data are consistently collected by the State and Territory jurisdictions.

67. FSANZ coordinates and monitors food recalls within Australia in consultation with health authorities from the affected State/s and Territory/s and the relevant sponsor (usually the product's manufacturer or importer). Recalls are carried out at either a trade or consumer level. A trade recall recovers the product from distribution centres and wholesalers. A consumer recall recovers the product from all points including from consumers.

68. The ANAO reviewed two trade recalls that highlighted issues of concern. The sponsor's report on the recall of semi dried tomatoes potentially infected with Hepatitis A noted that 70 per cent of the fruit was not recovered. The sponsor's report for a recall of paw paws infected with a bacterial skin contamination noted that 55 per cent of the infected fruit was not recovered.

69. A more rigorous approach to assess actions detailed in sponsors' reports would assist FSANZ to determine whether the most appropriate action had been taken to reduce risks to consumers. FSANZ is working through food incident and recall protocols to address traceability issues to prevent further products entering the market in similar circumstances. In the interim FSANZ's treatment of possible recalls of a similar nature is particularly important as the information that FSANZ provides to the ACCC is used to satisfy its Minister that a recall has been conducted satisfactorily and that consumers were protected. Additionally, the requirement for consumers to be advised only applies to a consumer recall and not a trade recall.^[13]

Recommendations

70. The audit made three recommendations in the proposed report in relation to FSANZ determining its contribution to the overall outcome of food safety; enabling FSANZ to better meet its objectives; and improving the transparency of FSANZ's approach to prioritising its work program.

Summary of agency response

71. The following comments are a summary of FSANZ's response to the audit. The full response is at Appendix 1.

72. FSANZ welcomes the opportunity to respond to this draft report. The draft report is a useful and informative analysis of FSANZ's approach to its primary function of developing and reviewing food standards contained in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The audit has identified a number of areas where FSANZ's administration of its food standards function could be enhanced, particularly in respect of the currency of the agency's publicly available information and the transparency of the agency's reporting. The audit also provided a good outline of the complex regulatory environment within which FSANZ operates and the many challenges that this brings for a small agency with limited resources.

73. FSANZ agrees with the three recommendations contained in the report. We are already well advanced in our work to address Recommendation 1 (Performance Indicators) and have commenced work to develop and implement the enhancements necessary to address Recommendation 2 (Legislative Objectives) and Recommendation 3 (Food Standards Development Work Plan). FSANZ also notes that a number of matters in regard to the agency's role in coordinating national food recalls have been raised. FSANZ will work with the jurisdictions to facilitate improved systems for traceability and recovery of products that may be the subject of a food recall.

Footnotes

^[1] Food Safety Performance World Ranking May 2008, Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Dr. Chris Yost, p.15.

^[2] These are the objects of the FSANZ Act.

^[3] Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, section 18 (1).

^[4] FSANZ refers to this process as the administrative assessment.

^[5] FSANZ refers to this process as the consideration period.

^[6] The time to develop any consequential standard is included in the timeframe.

^[7] FSANZ has publicly advised it considers proposals in similar timeframes to applications although proposals are not bound by a legislated timeframe.

^[8] Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, section 18.

^[9] The consideration period commences when a fee is paid and ends when the FSANZ Board approves or rejects the new or amended standard.

^[10] One of these applications was withdrawn by the applicant before the timeframe expired.

^[11] Although standard setting constitutes FSANZ's major responsibility it also carries out a number of other activities such as coordinating: food incidents; recalls; monitoring and surveillance; and education and providing information to stakeholders.

^[12] On 14 September 2010, the Treasurer became the responsible Minister.

^[14] Although there was no requirement for consumers to be notified there was extensive media coverage on the potentially infected tomatoes and media releases by state government health departments. For the second incident the state health department notified the public about the infected paw paws and provided information on how to treat the fruit to prevent illness.