Market produce safety at retail so consumers can choose

Posted: March 5th, 2010 - 10:54am by Doug Powell

I’m no fan of economic estimates of foodborne illness. The numbers are somewhat fantastical and the assumptions behind the numbers are usually oblique and obscured.

I’m also not a fan of whining.

In response to a study released earlier this week by the Pew Charitable Foundation's Produce Safety Project, which pegged the annual cost of foodborne illness at $152 billion and which Chapman has already taken to task, United Fresh Produce Association president Tom Stenzel said,

“It’s really a shame that, once again, advocates for food safety legislative reform are stoking unneeded anxiety about produce safety. This report inappropriately lumps together data from all foods and all food contamination events, including those at church picnics and cross-contamination after sale to the consumer. There’s no data on illnesses actually related to contamination from the farm, which is a much smaller subset cause of foodborne illness. … The fresh produce industry is working tirelessly to grow and market the safest possible products. We strongly support national government oversight of produce safety standards to ensure a science-based, commodity-specific approach no matter where a product is grown. What’s harmful about tactics like this is that advocates are actually scaring consumers away from the very products they need to be consuming more of for better health.”

Dude, you need a better writer. And an editor.

Rather than complain, why not advertize and market all the outstanding food safety efforts your members are undertaking, at retail, so concerned consumers, who have heard a thing or two about produce-related outbreaks over the past 20 years, can make their buying decisions based on evidence rather than faith? Make your testing data public. And stop whining.

Your rating: None (1 vote)
Bookmark and Share

Comments

Richard Ross says:

I was just with a VP of food safety for a large food manufacturer that made the comment that a positive test for salmonella or e-coli meant that they wouldn't buy that lot from a supplier. Even if retests all showed negative, they would not purchase that lot. That is not scientific, it is emotional. So how would the public react to a positive test result? Let's ask Georgia. The state passed a law last year to have all positive test results reported to the state. I checked and found nothing on the State Department of AG website for Georgia. Must not have had any positives in the state. HMMMM.

Posted on March 12th, 2010 - 11:47am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.