Evidence

  • Posted: February 8th, 2012 - 6:44am by Doug Powell

    loblaws.gif

    It’s not that a grocery mogul told a supposed food safety conference that “one day, (farmers’ markets) are going to kill somebody;” it’s that no one in the farmer’s market community responded with any kind of microbiological food safety comment, resorting instead to, trust us and we’re inspected.

    The Toronto Star reports mega-billionaire Galen-hey-now-Weston (right, exactly as shown), head of Canadian mega-grocer Loblaws, with over 1,000 stores, told the Canadian Food Summit yesterday, "Farmers' markets are great … One day they're going to kill some people, though. I'm just saying that to be dramatic, though.”

    Robert Chorney, the executive director of Farmers' Markets Ontario, responded, "We strenuously object" to Weston's remark. That was awful."

    Ontario's 175 farmers' markets do more than $700 million in sales every year. Chorney promoted a few food safety myths of his own, saying that markets are regularly inspected and food is easily traceable because consumers know who they're buying from.

    Inspections don’t mean much. And just because someone drives to the Food Terminal in Toronto to load up on produce at 3 a.m. and then sell it at a premium at the local market adds nothing to traceability.

    “The association said that four surveys since 1998 have shown that 83 per cent of respondents feel market food is as safe or safer than supermarket food.”

    Surveys suck; people’s perceptions often have no basis in reality.

    "A question for Galen Weston Jr: Have you ever been to a farmers' market?" tweeted Gail Gordon Oliver, publisher and editor of Edible Toronto. "Have you ever REALLY spoken to a farmer?"

    I have. And I ask questions. Like quality of irrigation water, what kind of shit soil amendments are used, and employee handwashing programs. I ask about microbial test strategies and results as verification that the farmer, whether she bought it from the Food Terminal or grew it herself, has a clue about dangerous microorganisms. Most answer with variations of, trust me.

    There’s already enough faith-based food safety out there.

    “Some delegates whispered among themselves on coffee breaks that supermarkets sell most of the food that's recalled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).”

    That's because supermarkets sell most of the food that is consumed in Canada.

    “Farmers' Markets Ontario works with Ontario's 36 public health units, each of which has a champion responsible for markets. It has a food safety manual on its website.”

    A manual? Awesome, my faith is restored.

    I don’t care if it’s a farmer’s market or the Loblaws megalomart: provide evidence that the food you’re flogging is microbiologically safe. The best producers and retailers will market food safety at retail. People want it, that’s one reason they go to markets and buy all sorts of weird categories of food, but it’s not safer; it’s hucksterism.

    And being a big company like Maple Leaf of 2008 listeria-in-cold-cuts fame that killed 23 Canadians is no guarantee or even hint that microbiological food safety matters. Regardless of size, or production method, or retail experience, providers either know about microbial food safety risks and take serious steps to control those risks – or they don’t.

    In the 1990s as outbreaks were increasingly associated with unpasteurized apple cider, I would ask my cider provider at the Guelph local market (that’s in Canada) what he was doing to ensure the microbiological safety of his product. He could recite a variety of measures taken on the farm, and even set up a modest micro lab on the farm for testing. I bought his cider.

    Your rating: None (5 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: March 31st, 2011 - 8:02am by Doug Powell

    Is cooking food until it’s ‘piping hot’ a science-based recommendation?

    The Food Standards Agency has published its updated Strategy to 2015, Safer food for the nation with five core principles:

    • putting the consumer first;
    • openness and transparency;
    • science and evidence-based;
    • acting independently; and,
    • enforcing food law fairly.

    And six core outcomes:

    • foods produced or sold in the UK are safe to eat;
    • imported food is safe to eat;
    • food producers and caterers give priority to consumer interests in relation to food;
    • consumers have the information and understanding they need to make informed choices about where and what they eat;
    • regulation is effective, risk-based and proportionate, is clear about the responsibilities of food business operators, and protects consumers and their interests from fraud and other risks; and,
    • enforcement is effective, consistent, risk-based and proportionate and is focused on improving public health.

    Sounds great. But what are the details?

    Of the estimated £135m annual budget, £20m is allocated to ensuring consumers have information necessary to make informed food choices, with priorities for improving public awareness about good food hygiene at home; increasing visible information on hygiene standards when consumers eat out or shop; and improving public awareness of healthy eating.

    For that amount of money, the science-based FSA could do much better than telling citizens their meat is safe when it’s “piping hot” and “the juices run clear.”

    Piping hot is not science or evidence-based; color is a lousy indicator of safety; using a tip-sensitive digital thermometer is the only safe way to determine if food has reached a safe temperature.

    FSA also states “The strategy is written in a way that consumers can understand and explains the range of work we do across the UK.“

    It’s not clear whether anyone asked consumers if they could understand, but FSA did state one of its main priorities was to “improve public awareness and use of messages about good food hygiene practice at home.”

    Use of messages improves nothing; using practices recommended in messages may translate into fewer sick people, but those messages need to be evidence-based.
     

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share