Evaluating National Food Control System of Nepal: Part 4

Please read the information about FAO evaluation tool , part 1, part 2 and part 3 of the series before reading this third part.

In this post we will try to use the FAO tool to evaluate the National Food Control System of Nepal. The evaluation will be done in four dimensions:

Dimension A: Are system resources and inputs adequate?

Dimension B: How do the controls function?

Dimension C: How does the system interact with stakeholders?
Dimension D: Is the system evidence based ? Does it support continuous improvements?

In this part, we will only evaluate the fourth dimension D: “Is the system evidence based ? Does it support continuous improvements?”

(Source: FAO/WHO, 2019)

We are going to use the same qualitative scoring scale during evaluation:

1 = Absent

2 = Insufficient

3 = Basic requirements exist

4 = All requirements exist

5 = Exceeds the requirement

(Please note that CA has been used frequently as a short form for “Competent Authority”)

S.N.	Criteria	Score
D	SCIENCE/ KNOWLEDGE BASE AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
D.1	EVIDENCE/RISK BASE
D.1.1	Access of CAs to updated scientific and technical information: CAs base their decisions on relevant scientific and technical information.
D.1.1.1	Relevant staffs have access to authentic and up-to-date sources of scientific, technical, monitoring and surveillance information.	2
D.1.1.2	Staff are supported to share new knowledge with work colleagues and work teams	2
D.1.1.3	CAs actively collaborate with one or more Centres of Excellence or Reference Centres for food safety and staff participate in professional associations	1
D.1.2	Capacity to collect and analyse data for risk analysis purposes: Risk analysis is based on robust information collection processes and quality data.
D.1.2.1	There is sufficient infrastructure and technological capacity to conduct data collection to support risk analysis activities.	2
D.1.2.2	Sufficient expertise supports the elaboration of sound protocols for data collection and analysis required by the country for risk analysis.	2
D.1.2.3	CAs monitor data collection and processing, performing data quality controls.	2
D.1.2.4	CAs identify and collect data on country-specific hazard and commodity combinations.	2
D.1.2.5	A surveillance system is in place that integrates information from the entire food chain to enable a better understanding of risk.	1
D.1.2.6	Data from routine inspection, monitoring and surveillance programmes are used to inform new or current risk analysis activities.	1
D.1.2.7	The CAs identify data needs for risk assessments and generate the data needed.	1
D.1.2.8	Targeted research studies are conducted to attribute food sources to specific diseases, understand FBD epidemiology and estimate the burden of FBD on the community.	1
D.1.2.9	CAs generate burden of FBD estimates that integrate disease incidence and severity data with attribution to food-borne transmission, as the best evidence for risk prioritization.	1
D.1.3	Knowledge and use by CAs of risk analysis framework: CAs appropriately use the risk analysis framework to quantify food safety risks, and use the outputs to plan and cyclically refine their food safety official controls.
D.1.3.1	CAs demonstrate sound understanding of risk analysis principles and commitment to the risk management framework in processes and outputs, as appropriate, pertaining to legislation, standard setting, policies, guidance, etc.	2
D.1.3.2	CAs use risk ranking approaches to target resources for risk management.	1
D.1.3.3	When necessary, CAs use risk profiles to guide and inform the deployment of resources into official controls.	1
D.1.3.4	CAs have collaborated to produce a risk categorization framework of FBOs.	2
D.1.3.5	Risk assessments are being conducted and they deliver scientifically defensible risk estimates (qualitative or semi-quantitative).	1
D.1.3.6	Quantitative risk assessments are conducted.	1
D.1.3.7	Advanced techniques are applied to management of food safety risks.	1
D.1.3.8	Risk assessments and risk management measures are periodically re-assessed and updated as necessary.	1
D.1.3.9	Units conducting risk assessment and risk management are functionally separated, and CAs and experts involved in risk assessment are not subject to any conflict of interest.	1
D.2	CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
D.2.1	Performance monitoring of CAs and continuous improvement: CAs implement an array of tools and approaches to regularly review and improve performance and ensure that relevant outcomes are achieved.
D.2.1.1	Within CAs, there is organizational commitment to monitoring performance.	2
D.2.1.2	CAs’ processes have specific outcomes that can be monitored and evaluated.	3
D.2.1.3	CAs have created a monitoring plan supporting the measurement of performance.	2
D.2.1.4	CAs implement a performance monitoring plan and use the data produced to improve processes and achievement of outcomes.	2
D.2.1.5	The CAs responsible for official controls for food safety have instigated internal audits of official control processes.	2
D.2.1.6	The CAs responsible for official controls for food safety have written policies to use external audit of business processes to improve public services and these policies are implemented.	3
D.2.2	Mechanism to ensure consideration of newest scientific and technical information for food control: The national food control system benefits from most recent scientific and technical knowledge to ensure relevance of overall outcomes.
D.2.2.1	There are fruitful working links between the CAs and academia, universities, technical institutes and other expert groups (e.g. scientific committees), with the objective of generating relevant information for assessing and responding to food safety and fraud issues.	2
D.2.2.2	CAs adopt foresight techniques to support a preventative approach to food control, early identification of emerging and critical issues and implementation of effective policies and decision-making.	2
	Total score	47
	Average score	1.6

The average score implies that: “The existing National Food Control System of Nepal should be upgraded to make it science/ evidence based Food Safety Management System. In addition, the principle of continuous improvement needs to be incorporated in the system.”

Read other parts

1. National Food Control System of Nepal: Part 1
2. National Food Control System of Nepal: Part 2
3. National Food Control System of Nepal: Part 3
4. National Food Control System of Nepal: Part 4

5. National Food Control System of Nepal: Final Part

Note: this is author’s personal opinion and you are free to agree or disagree with this evaluation. If there are mistakes or suggestions, please feel free to make positive comments and feedback.

References:

FAO and WHO. 2019. Food control system assessment tool: Introduction and glossary. Food safety and quality series No. 7/1. Rome.

FAO and WHO. 2019. Food control system assessment tool: Dimension A – Inputs and resources. Food safety and quality series No. 7/2. Rome.

FAO and WHO. 2019. Food control system assessment tool: Dimension B – Control Functions. Food safety and quality series No. 7/3. Rome.

 FAO and WHO. 2019. Food control system assessment tool: Dimension C – Interactions with stakeholders. Food safety and quality series No. 7/4. Rome.

 FAO and WHO. 2019. Food control system assessment tool: Dimension D – Science/Knowledge base and continuous improvement. Food safety and quality series No. 7/5. Rome.