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.
.jpg)
“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.
(1)(1).jpg)
“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.
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/113508
I completely agree that the Times editorial was nonsense. I also agree that several of the reform proposals, especially for a single federal food agency, are a distraction.
But, I don't agree that marketing on mircobial food safety programs will work. First, because marketing is about differentiation. Remember the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval? In any event, you never hear it anymore. Why? Once everyone got on the bandwagon, it didn't provide differentiation. Over time, everyone would have to claim to be safe. Would they be? Could a strong certification program exist? Maybe. (I think there is one for bicycle helmets, but it isn't the core of helmet marketing.)
Second, what kind of content would the advertising have? While fear is one of the classic bases on which to sell stuff, I really think advertisers would have a hard time reminding customers of, well, barfing in their ads. Somebody might try. But I'm not holding my breath.
Third, lawyers. I speak as one with a law degree (but not a license to practice) on this subject. Think about how the FDA regulates health and safety claims for drugs, medical devices, food products, and so forth. I haven't done any specific legal research on this, but making claims about microbial safety is legally fraught.
Summary. An idea only a scientist could love.