Times food safety editorial is nutty

An editorial in Tuesday’s N.Y. Times about the now bankrupt Peanut Corporation of America and its Salmonella shitfest is long on outrage but short on imagination.

“While most successful food producers are far more diligent — big name-brand peanut butter is considered safe, for example — American consumers have faced far too many food-supply emergencies in the last few years.”

Is ConAgra a big food company? Wasn’t Peter Pan peanut butter the source of a huge Samonella outbreak in 2007?

“Congress needs to find more money for inspectors, especially at the Food and Drug Administration.”

Maybe, but lots of federal and state inspectors, along with the best and brightest the Ponzi scheme of food safety auditing had to offer all seemed to miss the problems at PCA. If someone wants to break the law and ship Salmonella-contaminated product, it’s going to happen.

“President Obama promised during the campaign to create a government that does a better job of protecting the American consumer. The nation’s vulnerable food supply is a healthy place to start.”

Government has a role. But nowhere did the Times editorial mention the power of consumer choice that would be unleashed if food producers would truthfully market their microbial food safety programs, coupled with behavioral-based food safety systems that foster food safety culture from farm-to-fork. The best producers and processors will go far beyond the lowest common denominator of government and should be rewarded in the marketplace.
 

No incentive for a culture of food safety?

In an op-ed published on Marler Blog today titled, The market for peanuts: Why food in the U.S. may never be safe, Denis W. Stearns seemed to list three reasons why there is little economic incentive for producers to make food that is safer than that of any other producer.

Stearns argued that the culture pervading Peanut Corporation of America was a perfect example of those ideas at work.

1. To begin with, there is no such thing as a “free” market for food…

Consumers want safe food, but cannot tell if a food is hazard-free before purchase and therefore cannot discriminately buy only safe brands.

Stearns referred to a New York Times article that described “the array of poor work conditions and safety flaws” hidden behind the plant’s walls that was not perceived in its products until hundreds were sickened.

2. [R]egulations can impose a predictable cost that companies can meet, but need not exceed.

An incident/outbreak linked to one producer can turn consumers off the entire product-category, regardless of how far above and beyond regulations unassociated producers go to ensure safety.

In the same vein, George Akerlof was quoted as saying “there is an incentive for sellers to market poor quality merchandise since the returns for good quality accrue mainly to the entire group…rather than to the individual seller.”

3. Finally, there is the important issue of traceability—or, in the case of the United States, the stunning lack of it.

If it is not likely that an incident/outbreak will be traced back to the producer responsible, the possibility of making a profit from a contaminated food may be greater than the chance they’ll get caught.

Stearns cited e-mails by Peanut Corp. president Stewart Parnell in which he directed that contaminated produce be shipped: "I go thru this about once a week. I will hold my breath …. again."

Stearns closed with this:

[A]t this point, after outbreak after outbreak after outbreak, is it possible that finally, once and for all, the case for the effective regulation of the food industry has been incontestably made?

I can only hope so.

Because until the market for peanuts—and other food—is made to work for the benefit of the public health, the big profits will continue to go to the companies that cheat, cut corners, and do not care.
 

Market food safety so consumers can choose

The news this morning is full of features and editorials seeking to explain the shit storm of Salmonella produced by Peanut Corporation of America.

Chapman and I tried to take it a step further and focus on effective, long-term steps to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness from farm-to-fork. At this point in time, promoting food safety culture coupled with marketing and a series of carrots and sticks is the best we can come up with.

In 1204 in Montpellier, France, a butcher selling a substitute meat in place of the advertized beast was required by statute to reimburse the customer twice the amount paid. In Narbonne, regulations dictated a whipping “with sheep tripe” in front of the food stall for unscrupulous sellers. China routinely executes its biggest food frauds.

During a hearing before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee looking into a salmonella outbreak linked to a Georgia peanut processing plant, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said Thursday that food producers responsible for widespread, deadly outbreaks of disease should face jail time, not just fines, to get food makers to take food safety seriously.

Sixteen years after E. coli O157:H7 killed four and sickened hundreds who ate hamburgers at the Jack-in-the-Box chain, the challenge remains: how to get people to take food safety seriously?
Lots of companies do take food safety seriously and the bulk of American meals are microbiologically safe. But recent food safety failures have been so extravagant, so insidious and so continual that consumers must feel betrayed.

The politicos in Washington are focused on legislative fixes, maybe creating a single-food inspection agency, maybe increasing inspections, insisting microbiological test results be submitted to government, maybe mandating jail time for the most audacious executives. Such moves may send a signal of hope and change, but will do little to reduce the carnage contaminated food and water wreak on the American public each year – 76 million illnesses and 5,000 deaths.

Industry – the folks that process peanuts and all those companies that make some of the 1,550 different peanut butter crackers, ice cream, energy bars and dog treats that have been recalled – is equally void of ideas. The system to ensure safe food relies largely on so-called third-party audits of suppliers, a system that glowingly approved Peanut Corporation of America and its leaky roof, filthy floors and rat-infested storage areas.

Other peanut butter manufacturers like Unilever and ConAgra Foods say they have “stringent food safety and quality control standards.” But neither will say what it is they do better than PCA; neither will say how often the plants test their finished product for foodborne illnesses or other contamination. Maple Leaf Foods in Canada, whose deli meats killed at least 20 Canadians last fall, says it has done 42,000 tests for listeria across 24 packaged meat plants in the past three months, but will not make the results publicly available for scrutiny.

Even Whole Foods, where consumers pay a hefty premium for basic foodstuffs, said the company carefully checks the paperwork for all the products it sells, but can do no better than the minimal standard of government.  “For the thousands of products we sell, that’s the extent we can go to. The rest of it is up to the F.D.A. and to the manufacturer.”

Like a fiscal house of cards, the Ponzi scheme of inspection and verification for food safety is collapsing with merely the mention of consumer scrutiny. Sort of like an eighth grade party with chaperones — just pop and chips. But when the inspector or auditors leaves, the party turns exciting (read all about it on Facebook).

A cultural shift is required for everyone, from the farm through to the fork, to take food safety seriously. Frank Yiannas, the vice-president of food safety at Wal-Mart has taken an initial stab in his new book, Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-based Food Safety Management System.

Yiannas says that an organization’s food safety systems need to be an integral part of its culture. At Peanut Corporation of America, former employees are now coming forward to tell of filthy conditions in the Blakely, Georgia, processing plant. A company with a strong food safety culture would have encouraged those employees to speak up while they were employed, not because the manager or auditor or inspector was watching, but because it was the right thing to do.

The best food producers, processors, retailers and restaurants should go above and beyond minimal government and auditor standards and sell food safety solutions directly to the public. The best organizations will use their own people to demand ingredients from the best suppliers; use a mixture of encouragement and enforcement to foster a food safety culture; and use technology to be transparent — whether it’s live webcams in the facility or real-time test results on the website — to help restore the shattered trust with the buying public.

Here’s what consumers can do: at the local market, the stop-n-shop or the supermarket, ask someone, how do I know this food won’t make me barf? While such talk may be socially frowned upon, it’s time to put aside the niceties and bureau-speak and talk directly about safe food.

The more customers ask, the more food providers will be encouraged to market their food safety efforts.

Just like in 13th century France.

Doug Powell is an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University and the publisher of barfblog.com. Ben Chapman is a food safety extension specialist at North Carolina State University.

Inspection and reality

I’m not a fan of focusing on food safety inspections or audits (and neither is Doug).  Sometimes it gets us plunked into the does-not-play-well-with-others category. That’s fine.  Here’s the deal: After playing hockey with government folks and talking to lots of inspectors I really like them.  I like the idea of what they’re trying to accomplish (and I’ll even try to set them up for open-net goals) but the whole concept of inspection as verification of actual food safety practices is flawed.

The theory behind inspection is that an operator (of a processing company, a restaurant, a church dinner, whatever) has a set of guidelines to follow to make and sell safe food. That part is fine. The inspector/auditor then comes in to tell them whether they are doing things right or not, and record that information. This is where it falls apart. That time the auditor/inspector spends in the facility represents an unrealistic snapshot of what actually happens.  Even if multiple inspectors show up to a facility over a period of time to gather more snapshots, what they see will likely be different. The human factor, around risk identification varies. Some inspectors really know the laws and regulations and risk is black and white. Others see the gray areas.  What’s more important to the health and safety of customers is what happens when the inspectors, or auditors, or the boss, aren’t there.

A couple of years ago, Brae Surgeoner and I interviewed restaurant operators and environmental health officers about their views regarding restaurant inspection. Almost all of the operators suggested that inspection was a good thing, and that they had a good relationship with EHOs.  And that’s when things got fun. Restaurant operators reported to us that what was being seen and recorded wasn’t representative of what was really happening with every meal.  They adjusted their personnel and their procedures so they looked good.  It’s kind of like an 8th grade house party with chaperones. Just pop and chips. But when the inspector leaves the party turns exciting. The best part of the study for us was that the inspectors reported the same thing: they felt they weren’t getting the full picture and knew everyone was on their best behavior while they were around (just like the parents).

So what’s to be done? The parents are part of it, but a block parent camped out checking that everyone’s breath doesn’t smell like peach schnapps isn’t the answer (because folks will find ways around it, like chewing lots of Juicy Fruit gum). The scare tactic of getting caught might work in the short term, but compelling operators to create a food safety culture, that will enhance their business is a better focus.

In this climate of uncertainty, it’s time for the really good peanut butter companies to step up, open their doors and show everyone how they prevent outbreaks of foodborne illness. Not their inspection or audit results, but a compelling story on how they identify and control risks. This is where the biggest return on all those food safety dollars might be seen, especially if the company can back it up and start marketing it to their customers.
 

Top 10 beer slogans: nothing to do with food safety, but the marketing slogans could be used

Everyone knows that beer is great. But sometimes the slogans used to sell it are even better.

10. Blatz – How Mother and Baby "Picked Up"
This advertisement actually says, "A case of Blatz Beer in your home means much to the young mother, and obviously baby participates in its benefits

9. Schlitz – The Beer That Made Milwaukee Famous
Being famous for Schlitz is up there with being famous for dandruff

8. Red Stripe – Hooray Beer!
After three or four brewskis the little man in your brain isn’t thinking about problems at work, your mortgage payment or the fact that your wife doesn’t find you attractive anymore. He’s just dancing around in his boxers and yelling, "Hooray Beer!"

 7. Mackeson Milk Stout – It looks good, it tastes good, and by golly it does you good.

6. Carlsberg – Probably the Best Beer in the World.
Hey, this beer might be the best one in the world. Or maybe it’s not.

5. Courage Beer – It’s What Your Right Arm Is For
God gave you two arms for a reason. Your right one is for shoveling Courage Beer into your face. And your left one is for everything else. (I’m pretty sure that’s somewhere in the Bible.)

4. Miller High Life – The Champagne of Beers
Does it make sense to use another type of alcohol to try and sell your own brand of alcohol?

3. Pabst Blue Ribbon – This One Has The Touch!
I have an uncle who got a case of "the touch" after a case of Pabst. He’s not allowed to come over for Thanksgiving anymore.

2. Colt 45 – It Works Every Time
Colt 45 wants to make it very clear. It will get you laid EVERY TIME you drink it. Not 1/3 of the time. Not 74% of the time. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Just ask Billy Dee Williams.

1.    Schaefer – It’s The One Beer To Have When You’re Having More Than One

Kentucky Fried Chicken marketing food safety

I must have been in grade 11.

The object – no, not an object, the girl — of my affection worked part-time at the local Kentucky Fried Chicken in Brantford, Ontario (that’s in Canada).

We’d meet after work, and ever since, the Colonel’s secret spices have held a special place.

In university and afterwards, I always seemed to live within smelling distance of the Kentucky version of deep-fried chicken thingies. And then there was the moving ritual: who hasn’t changed residences without a bucket of the Colonel and a case of beer to pay off the movers? (I’m thanking you, Marty)

It’s been a long time, but driving back from Des Moines Sunday morning with Amy, I was suddenly struck with the KFC urge. It was gross, although the corn-on-the-cob was as good as I remember when Chapman and I got a similar meal in upstate New York before crossing the border into Canada — no corn-on-the-cob in Canadian KFC, at least not in 2003 – returning from a golf trip I was particularly grateful for.

And now KFC is marketing food safety.

Maybe they have been for a long time. I apparently only visit during nostalgia trips.  But there it is, right there on the Colonel’s bucket: rigorously inspected; thoroughly cooked; quality assured.

Now, can I get that same assurance on the cole slaw – the cabbage-containg cole slaw that led to an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in 1998 and again in 1999 at KFCs in Indiana and Ohio?

Marketing food safety: take control or the following (gross) images will proliferate

Found this on youtube. Apparently it’s a promotion for “growth hormone free beef” by NaturalMarket.com and won the 2006 Young Directors Award.

For everyone who says consumers need to be educated about things like growth hormones, or raw milk, or food safety, this is an example of the competing image. The video below is marketing food safety.

Retailers and manufacturers need to get beyond old-school thinking about food safety and start marketing directly to consumers.
 

Chinese poop turns heads in Lawrence (Kansas)

Bryan Severns, a new food science student at Kansas State and a former chef, writes about the discussion prompted by his Chinese language Don’t Eat Poop shirt, and general hygiene at the Lawrence market:

On a beautiful sunny Saturday in Lawrence, the handwashing word was spread from the Farmers market, through the fabric store, to the Merc. The combination of Chinese characters and the Don’t Eat Poop web address were enough to spark conversations in food safety and educational techniques. The most common initial reaction is wide eyed disbelief that anyone would say that in public, but upon further explanation most people have stories of their own to relate, and the conversation is off and rolling.

In related news, it was nice to see a complete handwashing station set up at the Farmer’s Market. Actually saw it in action, very cool. I’m a total supporter of local producer markets, but quite often the sanitation is left up to individual participants, and most seem to barely get their product out on display, let alone take care of the clean up details. Big points to the Market Manager and city of Lawrence.

On a more general note, after spending three weeks and 3000 miles to get to KSU from Vermont, my wife and I are glad to be here and have a great time learning about the area. Thanks to all who have been friendly and helpful, Manhattan is a very welcoming city.

That’s me with the beard visiting our son at Coast Guard Station Fire Island, New York (below).


 

Mayra goes to the Idaho market, and finds food is local, not safer

I followed Doug’s suggestion to flesh out consumer reactions to the latest Salmonella outbreak and visited the farmers market in Idaho while visiting my boyfriend.

I read the results of a poll published by the Associated Press, concluding that half of Americans are changing their buying behavior because of the most recent salmonella outbreak.

I was surprised at the market when all the people who I managed to grab for a short interview (shoppers busy shopping) replied they weren’t afraid of getting sick from the food they were buying.
 
But they weren’t feeling completely safe either.

I guess getting diarrhea once in a while is just part of life. And things can get out of control for farmers, large and small, unless you are controlling, of course. 

“I’m buying tomatoes now,” she said. “Nothing is safe unless it comes from your own backyard and you have full control and knowledge over how you grow the produce.”

One woman even said that the salmonella outbreak was simply fake. She understood it as some sort of scam of the government to get people to believe in something to act a certain way and that it’s destroying people’s lives.

Wow.

Didn’t quote her in my article.

But this was the general reaction I got:

“Everything is locally grown and I want to support local, including a friend who works at a farm,” she said. “I don’t think it’s safer though.”

I agree with the conclusion of this shopper:

“With rising oil prices, people have been concerned about other things too,” he said. “They are more concerned about sustainability and the environment, and they think coming to the market supports the cause.”

Mayra Rivarola is a journalism student at Kansas State University hoping to graduate in 2010 when she plans to return to her native Paraguay.  She loves traveling, cooking, and watching TV commercials. Mayra is also addicted to the Internet and is eternally thankful for Google.

Court says Tyson chicken antibiotic claims must stop

Hucksterism. That’s how I characterized the marketing by Tyson Foods Inc. of its antibiotic-free fresh chicken almost a year ago.

A couple of judges have now agreed.

Today, a federal appeals court in Baltimore refused to block an order barring Tyson Foods from advertising that its poultry products don’t contain antibiotics thought to lead to drug resistance in humans.

The lower court ruling was a victory for rivals Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms, who are suing to stop the advertisements. The two companies say the advertisements are misleading because none of the companies uses those types of drugs and shoppers could be led to think other companies use the drugs.

I continue to look forward to the day when food is marketed and advertised based on the lack of dangerous bugs that make people barf and shit.