From the douchebag files
Some people are lawyers and specialize in rhetoric. It’s that Plato thing.
Some of us submit our opinions to cat scratching peer review, take our lumps and get better.
There’s this bunch of lawyers who say they’re Defending Food Safety.
Probably the worst blog name since Maple Leaf’s “Our Journey to Food Safety Leadership.”
One of them, Shawn Stevens (stevens@gasswebermullins.com) wrote on Oct. 22/09 that each year, American families eat somewhere in the neighborhood of 328.5 Billion safe meals – and countless more safe snacks. While any illness or death linked to the consumption of food is one too many, the fact remains that (at three meals a day) you and I are 20 times more likely to die this year from pneumonia or drowning than from a food-borne illness. Although not perfect, the statistics are quite impressive.
As the Sloan song says
When you find you're a conformer
Take pride and swallow whole
Stevens goes on to say,
As consumers, we are inundated by media “fear-mongering,” and made to believe that with each meal consumed, we draw closer to the precipice of some fathomless tragedy. We are also taught to be suspicious and wary of the people who have dedicated their lives to ensuring that our families are fed, and that our food is wholesome.
You see, food safety is a complicated and dynamic issue. It is easy to be a cynic. It is easy to attack others with the benefit of extended hindsight. It is easy to simplify things to a level that a third grader would find devoid in both substance and fact. The real challenge, however, lies in embracing a reasoned and proactive approach that not only recognizes the limits of technology and science, but, at the same time, within these limits, best reduces the risks most likely to occur to the greatest extent possible.
Dude, you just failed my intro class for most horrible and unsubstantiated metaphors.
But why not reference our paper, Where does foodborne illness happen--in the home, at foodservice, or elsewhere -- and does it matter? Because that would conflict with your world-view?
In any event, for those who continue to ignore science and reason, who contend that food safety is the responsibility of food producers alone, and who wrongly proclaim that food safety is only as simple as “not eating poop,” I say this: given the statistics, what goes into one mouth is often far less harmful than what comes out of another.
I e-mailed the lawyer in question on Friday about the don’t eat poop line, and he decided not to answer. Seriously I don’t want to know what is coming out of his mouth.
France: Recall of Carrefour Discount brand frozen hamburger patties
The bites/barfblog French team of correspondent Albert Amgar and Manhattan (Kansas) translators Abby Herald and Amy Hubbell have provided news of the latest E. coli related recall from France, this time in Carrefour Discount Frozen Hamburger Patties (right).
Product recalled by: Carrefour
Department: Food and Drinks
Brand: Carrefour
Product: Lot Number/Serial Number: The aim of this recall is for lot number IE 565 EC with a “best by” date of August 5th, 2010.
Reason for recall: Discovery of contamination by the E.coli bacteria
Recommendation: Consumers having bought this product are asked not to consume it.
Place of recall: Consumers who have purchased the product are asked to bring it back to the store where they will be reimbursed.
Additional information: Carrefour states that they have received no consumer complaints. According to the distributer this bacteria is destroyed at a temperature of 65° C (149° F) and the hamburgers are of no risk if they have been thoroughly cooked. The products related to this recall have been removed from Carrefour, Carrefour Market and Champion stores.
Consumer Hotline: For more information, call the toll free hotline 0 805 90 80 70
Again, the recommended cooking temperature seems low, and it’s really risky to say there’s no-risk with any product. Cross-contamination in any food preparation area is a huge issue. That’s why everyone tries to get the pathogens out, rather than blaming the cook.
From the we've never had a problem file: Salmonella in lasagna edition
NBC 29 reports that a group of central Virginia guests have Salmonellosis that appears to be linked to frozen lasagna from a popular pasta shop. In a classic blame game maneuver and "wha happened?" defense, the owner of Mona Lisa (the pasta shop) says that if his food is the source of the outbreak, it was likely customer error.
The owner of Mona Lisa pasta says his kitchen is not to blame for six central Virginia dinner guests coming down with salmonella. While he says he sold the frozen lasagna, it was not his kitchen that was responsible for cooking it to code.
Chef Jim Winecoff has been creating Italian dishes at his Mona Lisa Pasta Shop on Preston Avenue in Charlottesville for years. Winecoff said, “We’ve been here for eight years now providing lasagna, fresh pastas, sausage, ravioli, through the company.”
Winecoff is confident his kitchen is not to blame. Winecoff stated, “We’ve had no trouble whatsoever with our food in the past and I hope this is not a problem with our food. The customer has written instructions as to how to prepare the food, to bake at a certain temperature for a certain amount of time, and that's a food-safe temperature.”
It's early on in the investigation and not much information is available but the "we've been doing things this way for a while and never had a problem" optimistic attitude doesn't do much to build trust.
Especially in an outbreak situation.
An operator with a good food safety culture knows about the microbial risks associated with their products and who might screw up, whether it is suppliers, staff or customers. Blaming the customers is never a good thing, especially if you happened to sell them something with a pathogen in it. Ask the ConAgra pot pie folks. Or the Nebraska Beef ground beef folks.
Telling a customer the time of baking and at what temperature misses the measurable risk reduction step -- endpoint temperature. Food businesses selling this-needs-to-be-cooked items should be stating what temperature the dish needs to be cooked to and how the temperature needs to be measured.
Food safety for people who don't cook: stop blaming consumers
The N.Y. Times asked me to comment on the food safety feature running this morning as part of their electronic Room for Debate section.
Douglas Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University and the editor of barfblog.com, writes:
ConAgra Foods said on Nov. 14, 2007 when it reintroduced pot pies that, “… redesigned easy-to-follow cooking instructions are now in place to help eliminate any potential confusion regarding cooking times.”
I tried to them out at the time and found the instructions inadequate.
Were the new labels tested with consumers? Is there evidence from ConAgra that pot pie fans were actually following the instructions on the labels? If the company was serious about making sure the instructions worked, it should have tested the new labels with at least 100 teenagers in observational studies to prove that a target market could actually follow the instructions before introducing the product to the mass market.
.jpg)
The instructions direct consumers to use a food thermometer to test the temperature. But it appears that bimetallic thermometers (traditional kitchen thermometers) are used on both the ConAgra label and in the Times video; these thermometers yield inaccurate readings. For a more accurate reading, consumers would have to use digital, tip-sensitive thermometers.
Food safety isn’t simple – it’s hard. For decades, consumers have been blamed for foodborne illnesss – with unsubstantiated statements like, “the majority of foodborne illness happens in the home.” Yet increasingly the outbreaks in foods like peanut butter, pot pies, pet food, pizza, spinach and tomatoes have little to do with how consumers handle the food.
Everyone from farm-to-fork has a food safety responsibility, but putting the onus on consumers for processed foods or fresh produce is disingenuous — especially for those who profit from the sale of these products.
Facing a recall without superhero senses leaves some vulnerable to confusion
I don’t like fresh tomatoes. .jpg)
Generally, my careful avoidance of them is a fairly unique practice. At least, I thought so until I met Bret. We stand together in our quest for vegetables that don't leak acid on the rest of the salad.
We were on our honeymoon when the outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul in tomatoes and/or hot peppers hit the news. Many people joined our stance on tomatoes then... but it took me a while to realize it.
Since I wasn’t reading FSnet while we were gone, I had to hear the warnings put out on eating tomatoes like a regular consumer would. It was like my superhero senses were turned off.
At the time, I wasn’t in the habit of watching the news. And according to the results of a Rutgers Food Policy Institute (FPI) survey,
“The majority of respondents (66 percent) first heard about the advisory on television.”
Throughout our trip, we ate at cafes, buffets, and casual dining establishments. When we didn’t eat out, we stopped at Wal-Mart for cereal and sandwich supplies. None of those places showed signs of produce being recalled.
The survey found,
“A small minority (8 percent) first heard about it from restaurants and retailers.”
As it happened, some of the first news I received came from my step-dad’s mom, who understood the problem to be in tomatoes sold with the vine still attached.
Hearing through the tomato-vine was problematic, though. I later learned the CDC advised,
“…persons with increased risk of severe infections…should not eat raw Roma or red round tomatoes other than those sold attached to the vine or grown at home…”
Those two words, “other than”, were missed (or misunderstood) at some point in the chain of communication that ended with me.
Lead author of the Rutgers FPI report, Dr. Cara Cuite said in a press release,
“Our results suggest that consumers may have a hard time taking in many details about these types of food-borne problems.”
Almost half (48 percent) of people surveyed indicated they were not sure which types of tomatoes were under suspicion.
I was back at superhero headquarters (i.e. in front of my Mac) when Salmonella Saintpaul was found in a sample of jalapenos from Mexico, and again when the outbreak strain was isolated from a Mexican serrano pepper and the water used to irrigate it.
Most consumers weren't so lucky. From the survey,
“The researchers found that while almost all respondents (93 percent) were aware that tomatoes were believed to [be] the source of the illness, only 68 percent were aware…that peppers were also associated with the outbreak.”
Dr. Cara Cuite commented in the press release,
“This research is especially timely in light of the growing number of recalls as a result of the Salmonella outbreak associated with peanut butter and peanut paste.”
How can consumers be better informed? One practice seen in both outbreaks that helped alleviate some confusion was the use of club membership or “loyalty card” information to contact customers who had recently bought recalled products.
What else can be done to clear things up? After all, regular consumers don’t have superhero senses.
Surprise: Research finds Canadians consumed fewer deli-meats after listeria killed 20
This is why I stopped being interested in survey research, oh, about 15 years ago.
The University of Guelph today announced that a new survey had found a majority of Canadians have changed their buying and consumption behaviour following the recall associated with listeria in ready-to-eat meats. If people said so, it must be true.
.jpg)
"The listeriosis outbreak was not only associated with the death of 20 people and the illness of many others, but it also contributed to economic loss in the food industry," said Prof. John Cranfield of the Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Uh, yup.
"Before the food recall, consumers did not consider the potential risks of ready-to-eat meats to be significant," Cranfield said.
That’s because no one, even listeria guru Michael McCain, said anything about the risks.
So, with a lot of death, illness and massive media coverage, consumers became more aware.
The press release also says, in something that is tragically not interesting, that,
“Interestingly, although overall confidence in food safety in Canada remains high, consumers' trust in food-chain stakeholders to protect them from listeria is only moderate, the researchers found. Farmers were judged to have the greatest ability to ensure the safety of food, whereas restaurants, grocery stores and the food-service sector were deemed to have the least ability.”
What farmers have to do with listeria in deli-meats is beyond me; maybe a university puckering a little too tightly to a constituency?
The press release gushes that,
“The survey is the second to be produced as part of the Guelph Food Panel, the first large-scale panel of consumers dedicated to food research. Developed by Henson, Cranfield and post-doctoral researcher Oliver Masakure, it allows researchers to accurately track changes in Canadians' eating habits and measure consumer responses to issues such as food scares.”
20 dead isn’t a food scare. It’s a food screw-up.
Are you food safety savvy?
That’s what dietician and TV personality Leslie Beck asked yesterday in the Toronto Globe and Mail as she posed a pre-Canadian-Thanksgiving food safety quiz.
Leslie (right) didn’t do so good -- and she’s the alleged teacher with the answer book.
That’s because she went to the Coles Notes version -- the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education – for her answers instead of doing some digging.
“While food processing has been blamed for many of these (foodborne) outbreaks, the fact remains that the majority of food-safety problems occur at home. It is estimated that Canada has as many as 13 million cases of food poisoning every year, most of which could be prevented by safer handling of food at home.”
With at least 20 people dead from listeria in cold cuts in Canada, such a statement is not only factually inaccurate, it is condescendingly harsh.
“Fresh produce must always be washed - true or false?
Answer: True
Fresh fruit and vegetables should never be consumed without being washed under clean, running water - even prebagged, prewashed produce.”
Chirstine Bruhn, UC Davis, do you have something to add on this? Last I saw, scientists were saying don’t rewash the pre-washed greens for fear of contaminating clean product. Food safety is not simple and there are lots of disagreements – which is why these laundry lists of do’s and don’t’s, are fairly useless. People are interested in this stuff, give them some data, some information, some context, not just questionable marching orders.
“What temperature does your stuffed Thanksgiving turkey need to reach before it is safe to eat?
Answer: d) 82 C (180 F)
Use a digital meat thermometer and cook your turkey until the temperature at the thickest part of the breast or thigh is at least 82 C (180 F)."
No idea where this comes from, because Health Canada won’t let mere mortals peek at the wizard behind the green curtain who makes such pronouncements (watch the video below for how Health Canada derives at consumer recommendations for things like cooking temperatures). The recommended internal temperature in the U.S. is 165F. You can read how that number was determined at http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2007/10/articles/food-safety-communication/thawing-and-cooking-turkey/.
Both are better than the U.K.’s, “piping hot.”
“What is the safest way to thaw your Thanksgiving turkey?
Answer: d) In the fridge
Never defrost a turkey at room temperature.”
Yes you can, and I will be this weekend. Check out Pete Snyder’s comments and our own work in this area.
We’ll be videotaping the turkey preparation for our annual Canadian-expat-in-Manhattan (Kansas) Thanksgiving feast on Monday.
Does the majority of foodborne illness happen in the home?
Where does foodborne illness happen?
Usually people notice it sitting or kneeling at the toilet.
But for 10 years, various groups had made claims that most foodborne illness happens in the home. It’s the consumer’s fault.
It happened again today.
In an otherwise innocuous press release stressing the importance of handwashing and the creation of a group in Canada featuring “leading experts in the fields of microbiology, virology, paediatrics, infectious disease, public health and education,” the leading experts rhetorically asked, did you know,
“The vast majority of food-borne (sic) illnesses occur because food was not handled or cooked properly and 80% of the cases happen in the home?”
There is no basis to this statement. After years of irritation, we’re finally getting the paper together to review the available data.
But until that’s available, this is what I wrote 10 years ago:
"Research shows that improper food handling in the home causes a major proportion of foodborne illnesses."
That line has been repeated so many times, even moreso since the launch of the FightBac food safety consumer education program last Nov., that I had to know: what was the research.
My associate Sarah Grant first e-mailed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency via their web site, because the federal agriculture Minister had used the line a few weeks ago. No luck there. We were referred to Health Canada.
After a few messages, a couple of tables with an explanatory note arrived. At last, the data.
Except it showed that known cases happen pretty much everywhere except the home.
A bit overstated. But still, the data sucked.
First, was a table representing known foodborne illnesses in Canada from 1990 to 1993. In March 1999, the U.S. Centres for Disease Control published active foodborne surveillance data from the end of 1998. Weekly updates are on their web site. The best we can do in Canada is 1993, and I have to buy the publication. Health Canada says they have plans to publish their data on the web ... soon.
Of the 23,322 known cases of foodborne illness in Canada between 1990 and 1993, 18,450 or 79 per cent were of unknown origin. Of the cases of known microbiological origin, 70 per cent were traced to food service; 11 per cent were traced to the home; 4 per cent were retail in origin.
The second table contained data on foodborne illness cases due to mishandling. Of the cases of known microbiological origin, 61 per cent were due to mishandling at the food service level; 11 per cent in the home; 6 per at retail and 6 per cent on farms or dairies.
I remain unconvinced.
Our surveillance capabilities are weak; certainly they are not strong enough to support statements such as, "research shows that improper food handling in the home causes a major proportion of foodborne illnesses." We simply do not know. Money was allocated to bolster Health Canada’s surveillance capacity in the last federal budget so maybe we will see improvements ... soon.
More to come ...
Really, consumers can decide about irradiation
In between listeria interviews yesterday I spoke with Julie Schmit of USA Today about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approved of irradiation on spinach and lettuce to kill dangerous bacteria.
The steady pace of food-safety scares -- and growing consumer awareness of food-safety risks -- will improve consumer acceptance of irradiated greens, says Doug Powell of the International Food Safety Network at Kansas State University
."There's been enough outbreaks ... that the consumer demand should be there.”
Craig Wilson, food-safety chief for Costco, said that while a handful of companies have succeeded in selling irradiated ground beef since it hit the market in 2000, the idea has largely flopped.
"Mom wouldn't buy it.”
But I bet there are lots of moms, and dads, who want to increase their consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables without having their kids end up on the kidney transplant list. As I said before, irradiation is an additional tool that can enhance the safety of the food supply. But don’t let the technology be derailed by activists on the InterWebs. Let consumers decide.
Let consumers decide about food irradiation
A friend sent me this mock-up of what the organic types may do in response to the approval of irradiation for spinach and lettuce.
Maybe, and the InterWebs are already soaked with screeds about the dangers of the man, and irradiation, but maybe consumers are a little beyond that. So I put out this:
Food irradiation of fresh produce is an additional tool that can help reduce the threat of foodborne illness — but it is not a magic bullet, according to Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has published a final rule allowing the irradiation of fresh iceberg lettuce and fresh spinach, available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cfsup185.html
Farmers still need to practice good agricultural practices, and the possibility of post-processing contamination still exists, Powell said, but added that irradiation is safe and should be made available at the retail level.
"There's a lot of people already speaking on behalf of consumers and what they may or may not do," Powell said. "When it comes to food, consumers vote with their wallets at checkout, not on public opinion surveys. I'd really like to see someone step up and offer consumers the choice. There have been enough serious outbreaks of foodborne illness in fresh produce that the interest in irradiated spinach and lettuce should be strong."
Powell can be reached at 785-317-0560 or dpowell@k-state.edu
See and Tell restaurant inspection: Waiter, I see a fly and in soup and I'm telling (and texting)
Croydon Today in the U.K. reports,
The See and Tell service, launched this month, enables people to text the Croydon Council's food safety team with concerns about food safety or labelling issues - in restaurants, shops or takeaways.
There are 2,600 food businesses in Croydon, from takeaways to supermarkets.
Brian Griffiths, manager of the council's food safety team, said,
“There are various levels of action we can take, but in the worst case scenario we can go in and close a place down on the spot. We rely heavily on customers tipping us off and this new text service will make it all the easier. If you find a hair in your soup you can literally text us from the restaurant table and we'll come and investigating.
“Sometimes I've opened bins at the back of restaurants and seen the meat moving because there were so many maggots on it. And at the moment we're dealing with a mice infestation at a high street store which sells food. It is really important we get to hear from residents about these sorts of things so we can go in and take the appropriate action.”
The move to enlist citizen diners seems like another expansion of social networking – the power’s with the people.
The city of Chicago has started encouraging Chicagoans who believe that a restaurant or any other licensed food establishment is operating in an unsafe manner to call 311 and report it.
Back in Feb. 2005, customers with cameras in South Korea were reported photographing any violation of food safety standards and reporting it to authorities.
The sikparazzi -- a combination of the word sik, meaning food, and paparazzi -- are, however, good news for the authorities.
The Korean Food and Drug Administration said 10,567 food safety violations were reported in the first nine months of 2004, and 74.2 million won ($118,624) paid in rewards, reported the Joong Ang Daily.
So lucrative is it to be a sikparazzi in South Korea that at least one private institute runs courses to train people for the job.
There have also been allegations that the sikparazzi sometimes contaminate the food themselves and then demand compensation, threatening to report it.
Mr Griffiths in Croydon also advised people to go to their GP if they think they have got food poisoning and give a poo sample, stating,
“The proof is in the poop and if people give a sample it can be used as evidence, which helps us wrap things up much easier if we get an allegation of food poisoning.”
Follow the poop. Everything comes down to poo.
Coffee, Conagra and consumers - talking in bed
The coffee place was just opening and as I awaited my order, a load of prepared sandwiches arrived. The first thing the staff member did was insert a tip-sensitive digital thermometer into one of the sandwiches to verify that the proper temperature had been maintained. Good on ya. The guy getting my order said it was standard operating procedure, and as we chatted it emerged he was newly arrived in Wellington from Montreal. Another Canadian buddy. Or friend.Next was a talk with ConAgra’s Food Safety Council in Omaha, Nebraska. That’s ConAgra of pot pie and peanut butter fame.
Quality experts at ConAgra Foods today will hear from a lawyer who has sued the company due to food borne illnesses and from two food safety advocates as the company stresses the need to keep its products safe.
"It's part of raising the game and listening to every expert on the food safety front," said Teresa Paulsen, ConAgra spokeswoman.
ConAgra decided to bring in Bill Marler, Barb Kowalcyk, director of food safety and co-founder of the Center for FoodBorne Illness Research and Prevention, and myself to hear what we had to say.
Marler told the Omaha World-Herald he was going to talk about fostering a culture that focuses on food safety while remaining profitable in a competitive industry, and credited ConAgra Chief Executive Gary Rodkin and other company executives for inviting him to speak.
"It says a lot for the company.”
Being in Wellington, NZ, and 17 hours ahead, provided several technological hurdles, which we sorta managed to get around. Video didn’t work, so the folks in Nebraska saw my slides and heard my disembodied voice – apparently in surround sound. I was talking into a telephone (left, exactly as shown), advancing my slides, but had no audience feedback. While awkward, I could get used to this lecturing style.
By the time I spoke with the consumer advisory group for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority later that afternoon, I had the message much more focused: here’s the top-5 factors that contribute to foodborne illness, here’s the research we do to reduce the burden of each, and here’s how we use different mediums and messages to foster a food safety culture, from farm-to-fork.
It’s been good to reflect on why we do the things we do, and it’s been great traveling in Wellington with Amy. Now it’s time for a couple of days of hanging out, catching up on news if I ever get my e-mail working again, and then its off to Melbourne on Sunday.
.jpg)
Blame consumers -- German style
Food News reports that the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) is presenting its work so consumers can find out more about the risks lurking in their kitchens.
The story says,
around 200,000 food infections are reported every year in Germany. Experts believe that the actual number is far higher since by no means everyone who is affected goes to see a doctor. Most of the infections with Salmonella, Campylobacter or other germs are not contracted in canteens or restaurants but in the home.
BfR President Professor Dr. Andreas Hensel said,
"Many consumers have never learned how to store and cook food properly in the home. By following simple rules it is possible to avoid unpleasant food infections."
Like Bill Marler wrote about the Chinese this morning, maybe the Germans are on to something as well. I'll stick with a farm-to-fork approach to food safety. There are outbreaks everywhere. Stop blaming consumers.
Blaming consumers -- Florida style
.jpg)
Pot pies, produce, peanut butter, pizza and pet food.These are not consumer food safety issues. There are farm and processing issues.
But so many government, academic and industry types can't help themselves, and have to make baseless declarations, like, "We have the safest food in the world," and, "The majority of foodborne illness happens in the home."
Estimates I've seen vary from 10 per cent to 90 per cent of identified foodborne illness happening in the home. But if I put peanut butter on bread, does that mean I should have taken steps to protect myself, like deep-frying the peanut butter? Should I cook all my fresh produce? How are the numbers counted?
Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles H. Bronson said in a press release today that,
"Numerous food-borne illness outbreaks during the past year have heightened public awareness about the dangers with various types of food items. From E-coli in lettuce and meat to salmonella in poultry, more than 76 million people are sickened by food-borne illnesses every year in the United States, resulting in more than 5,000 fatalities.
"However, the majority of food poisonings occur as a result of unsafe preparation and cooking practices."
.jpg)
Show us the data. Further, telling people -- like Commissioner Bronson did -- that, "once consumers have purchased the food it is up to them to follow safe and proper food handling practices" seems simplistic -- or convenient. Especially considering the number of salmonella outbreaks linked to Florida tomatoes that consumers could have done … nothing to prevent.
It's not a first: GE labeled corn sells better than non-GE
SanLuisObispo.com is reporting that the Avila Valley Barn in San Luis, Calif., clearly labels sweet corn it sells as genetically engineered -- “Our own GE corn" -- and offers customers a choice of traditional corn.“People have the right to know what they are eating,” DeVincenzo said.
Couldn't agree more. Consumer right to know is a fundamental value for North American shoppers. Labels may not be the best way to provide such information.
Andrew Christie, director of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, said,
“We still don’t think enough testing has been done on GE crops, but failing that, GE products should be labeled. We heartily endorse the precedent Dr. DeVincenzo is setting."
The store offers the GE and traditional corn at the same price.
While some customers complained that GE corn was offered at all, DeVincenzo said the typical customer says they prefer the modified type because it is not shucked and looks fresher. Traditional corn has to be partially or completely shucked to eliminate ears that are infested with worms.
Contrary to what the story says, it's not a first, to have genetically engineered and conventional whole produce sold side-by-side. Jeff Wilson of Birkbank Farms in Ontario, and my gang, did this beginning in 2000. We published the results in the British Food Journal in 2003 (Powell, D.A., Blaine, K., Morris, S. and Wilson, J. (2003), “Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 10, pp. 700-13.), and won best paper for the year.People have been complaining ever since, and making a lot of accusations about me and the research.
In response, this is what I published, again in the British Food Journal, Aug, 1, 2006 (Vol 108 Issue 8).
Would you eat wormy sweet corn? Or cabbage? Or broccoli?
That is what Ontario, Canada, producer Jeff Wilson often asks his customers. With 200 acres of fresh fruit and vegetables and a retail market on the farm, inquiring about his customers' preferences is not just good manners, it is good business.
Throughout the 1990s, Wilson's customers expressed a desire for reduced pesticides in the fresh produce purchased at his Birkbank Farms market. Wilson adopted an intensive integrated pest management program, but when cool, wet weather struck in 1997 – ideal for European corn borer – many of Wilson's customers who had previously said they could tolerate wormy corn by breaking off the damaged ends were no where to be found.
Wilson lost about $25,000 on sweet corn sales that year; an expensive lesson in people say one thing, but when it comes to grocery shopping, often do another.
So when I approached Jeff Wilson in 1999 about growing a genetically engineered Bt-sweet corn that in Florida field-trials had significantly reduced the need for pesticide sprays to control corn borer, he was enthusiastic.
I was eager to see what consumers would do when given a choice between genetically engineered and conventional whole produce – in this case sweet corn and potatoes – in a market setting instead of a survey or willingness to pay experiment which are both notoriously misleading.
As described in our paper (Powell et al., 2003), conventional (what we labeled as “regular” based on customer feedback) and genetically engineered Bt-sweet corn and potatoes were grown in similar eight acre plots, harvested, segregated and made available for sale at the Birkbank Farms Market.
Joe Cummins, and others on the Internet, have accused me, and my co-investigators, of academic fraud and bias, because a sign sitting atop the bin of regular sweet corn asked, Would you eat wormy sweet corn?
That is a question Jeff Wilson cares about, with his pocketbook. It is also the language consumers use when talking about sweet corn, and what they are looking for when they peel back the silks of corn-on-the-cob.
But is it language intended to manipulate consumer purchasing patterns?
No.
The use of language, and its shared meaning, is always subjective. I have always based such work on the integrative risk analysis framework, first promoted by the US Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management in 1997 (available at: www.riskworld.com/Nreports/nr7me001.htm) which argues that risk assessment, management and communication activities should be intertwined and reciprocal, rather than separate entities. And the best way to deal with value judgments in risk analysis is to openly declare potential sources of bias.
My bias is that science has a responsibility to lead, to explore the use of new technologies to enhance the safety and quality of the food supply while actively minimizing risks and respecting the concerns of affected consumers. For over a decade I have devoted my career to reducing the incidence of foodborne illness, and to the responsible use of new technologies to enhance the safety of the food supply.
Wilson and his staff at Birkbank Farms are committed to providing consumers with high quality food produced in the safest manner, as well as clear and accessible information regarding how that food is produced. Our shared goal is to understand consumer preference, not shape it.
The point-of-sale information in 2000 (and in subsequent years not described in Powell et al., 2003) at Birkbank Farms consisted of a large placard describing the options Wilson had to produce non-wormy corn, smaller handwritten signs describing the treatments received by corn available for sale on a specific day (which varied weekly throughout the course of the six-week consumer data collection period to reflect the different conditions under which different rows of corn were grown and variations in weather) and information pamphlets. This presentation can be viewed at: www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/images/sections/sweet-corn-model-farm.jpg.
The large placard contained the following text:
“Delivering High Quality Sweet Corn
In order to provide you with the quality of sweet corn that you want we have three options
1. Genetically engineered Bt-sweet corn:
contains Bt protein in leaves and stalk; and requires fewer insecticides to prevent worm damage thus minimizing environmental impact.
2. Bt-spary
same Bt protein as in genetically engineered variety but sprayed on leaves; and
protein exists naturally in environment and breaks down rapidly ...
3. Conventional pesticides:
used by most farmers to create worm free corn; and
applied according to guidelines set by governments, but harm to beneficial insects observed”.
Because the work at Birkbank Farms was an overall risk analysis experiment in providing the public, and anyone else, with full and transparent information about how a particular commodity was produced, a press conference was held at Birrkbank Farms on 30 August 2000, to mark the beginning of the sweet corn harvest. The handwritten sign over the regular sweet corn asked, Would you eat wormy sweet corn, and then listed the treatments that corn had received to produce less-wormy sweet corn. The handwritten sign over the GE sweet corn (and we deliberately chose the label GE sweet corn because that is what it was – not just genetically modified, not a product of biotechnology or other terms that proponents of GE have suggested may be more palatable to the consuming public) said “Here's what went into producing quality sweet corn”, and listed no pesticides but herbicide and fertilizer. The handwritten signs were changed the following week.
A critic of GE may charge that simply asking the question, Would you eat wormy sweet corn, unduly influences consumer preference. A supporter of GE may charge that by labelling the corn genetically engineered unduly stigmatises the product and influences consumer preference (Powell, 2001).
I find such categorizations simplistic.
However, one journalist, among the dozens of other journalists, scientists, activists and hundreds of consumers who visited Birkbank Farms during the data collection period, and cited by Cummins, apparently interpreted the sign as evidence of manipulation.
We observed no evidence to support that charge, either through formal intercept interviews or anecdotal conversations; quite simply, no one else mentioned the wormy corn aspect of our signage (which was referred to in the description on the placard and, briefly, on the handwritten sign), although we admittedly did not specifically ask the question. What we did observe and respond to was heightened customer interest in methods of food production generally, and in response we developed and maintained a three kilometre self-guided walking tour on Birkbank Farms outlining the various tradeoffs and choices that face a commercial producer. Hundreds of people who wanted to know more about how their food was produced and the challenges involved took a stroll through the farm in 2000, and hundreds more in subsequent years.
In 2001, when we deliberately downplayed the research at the farm after the extensive media attention the previous year, sales of GE sweet corn outsold regular sweet corn 5:2. The presentation used that year is available at: www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a = 4&c = 18&sc = 137&id = 889.
Cummins also alleges that the point-of-sale literature was promotional. The only literature that I am aware of present at point-of-sale was a brochure written by Katija Blaine and me, that contained information about benefits, risks and management strategies. Interested readers can make their own conclusions about the alleged persuasive nature of the brochures – one for Bt-sweet corn and one for Bt potatoes – by viewing them at: www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a& = 3&c = 9&sc = 53&id = 886 and www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a = 3&c = 9&sc = 53&id = 887,respectively.
The research at Birkbank Farms had strengths and weaknesses and both were related to the commercial nature of Wilson's operation. However, since May 2000 when we first wrote to Wilson's neighbours to inform them of our intent and hosted a public meeting for others to voice their concerns, we have been completely open about our intentions and results, and welcomed criticisms as a way to improve the project.
Powell, et al. (2003) explicitly acknowledged the limitations and applicability of the research by stating, “The labels on the produce bins may have influenced consumers to buy, just because they were there or perhaps because there was detailed information provided”, and concluded, “This research is a starting-point and describes the experience of one farmer on one farm during the 2000 growing season”.
Finally, to suggest that I possess some extraordinary persuasive skills, and that if I did, I would influence sweet corn purchases, one buyer at a time (with an intercept interviewee who was not included in the study) says more about the preconceived notion of my critics. What some allege is manipulation could more readily be described as conversation. Talking to people is good for Jeff Wilson's business and good for researchers.
Douglas Powell
Associate Professor, Department Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
References
Powell, D.A. (2001), “Mad cow disease and the stigmatization of British beef”, in Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Kunreuther (Eds), Risk Media and Stigma, EarthScan, London, pp. 219-28.
Powell, D.A., Blaine, K., Morris, S. and Wilson, J. (2003), “Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 10, pp. 700-13.
You get your money from where?
.jpg)
In a press release, posted in today's FSnet, the group states,
"Farmers’ Markets Ontario in partnership with the Association of Supervisors of Public Health Inspectors of Ontario, the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education, and local public health units recently embarked on a training and education initiative across Ontario, funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Workshops and print materials reminded farmers’ market managers, producers and vendors of the best ways to prepare, handle, transport, store and display fresh produce as well as other food products available at farmers’ markets throughout the province.
"Although the consumer is the final partner in the food safety chain, he or she may have the biggest responsibility of all. Studies indicate that most food-borne illnesses are caused by careless handling, improper storage or cooking, cross-contamination and lack of hand-washing."
Tell that to those who got sick or died from spinach. Or lettuce, tomatoes, peanut butter or any meal from a restaurant.
Contamination of fresh produce must be prevented on the farm -- there is very little consumers can do. Really, it's OK to say that. Stop blaming consumers.
