Carly Weeks of CanWest writes today that our food isn’t nearly as safe as we might think. Weeks discusses the risk-based nature of inspection (which is good) but also suggests that we need more oversight or inspection or something to make sure the food that arrives on the tables doesn’t make us sick (I’m not convinced).  I was cited in the article as saying:

 "There’s lots of different factors that lead to food-borne illness. The things that make people sick are hard to inspect for."

Performance measures on handwashing, cross-contamination, and a culture of food safety that promotes good practices, are difficult to gather during an inspection. And it’s pretty well impossible to look at the end product and try to assess the practices that it was produced under. 

Weeks writes that CFIA is inspecting 100% of the leafy greens that come from other countries — but is that a worthwhile investment? What does it really tell consumers?  Has inspection prevented any outbreaks? In the restaurant inspection literature Cruz and colleagues suggest that inspection results do little to predict the likelihood of an outbreak.  Is there any reason to think end product inspection, with less data, is any better?

This is really a food industry issue, I want to see what they are doing to protect their brands, how they foster organizational change within their firms — and with their suppliers — that goes beyond inspection.