Local food is not inherently safer food
The idea that food grown and consumed locally is somehow safer than other food, either because it contacts fewer hands or any outbreaks would be contained, is the product of wishful thinking.
(1).jpg)
Barry Estabrook of Gourmet magazine is the latest to invoke the local is pure fantasy, writing,
“There is no doubt that our food-safety system is broken. But with the vast majority of disease outbreaks coming from industrial-scale operations, legislators should have fixed the problems there instead of targeting small, local businesses that were never part of the problem in the first place.”
As soon as someone says there’s “no doubt” I am filled with doubt about the quality of the statement that is about to follow.
Foodborne illness is vastly underreported -- it's known as the burden of reporting foodborne illness. Someone has to get sick enough to go to a doctor, go to a doctor that is bright enough to order the right test, live in a state that has the known foodborne illnesses as a reportable disease, and then it gets registered by the feds. For every known case of foodborne illness, there are 10 -300 other cases, depending on the severity of the bug.
(1).jpg)
Most foodborne illness is never detected. It’s almost never the last meal someone ate, or whatever other mythologies are out there. A stool sample linked with some epidemiology or food testing is required to make associations with specific foods.
Newsweek has an excellent article this week about the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and its Disease Detective Camp, where teenagers learn how to form a hypothesis about a disease outbreak and conduct an investigation. The key lies only partly in state-of-the-art technology. At least half the challenge is figuring out the right questions to ask. Who has contracted the disease? Where have they been? Why were they exposed to this pathogen?
Maybe the vast majority of foodborne outbreaks come from industrial-scale operations because the vast majority of food and meals is consumed from industrial-scale operations. To accurately compare local and other food, a database would have to somehow be constructed so that a comparison of illnesses on a per capita meal or even ingredient basis could be made.
U.S. Congressional questions better than Canadian food safety silence
Elizabeth Payne, of the Ottawa Citizen's editorial board, writes that when the president of Peanut Corp. of America was hauled in front of a congressional hearing in Washington last week, Canadians should have been paying attention.
.jpg)
And cringing.
Few things have underlined the gap in the way our two countries approach food safety like the sight of company president Stewart Parnell sitting with arms folded while a congressman, in a theatrical flourish, offered him some of his company's tainted peanut products. Mr. Parnell's company is at the centre of a salmonella outbreak that has sickened 600 people and may have killed eight in recent months.
On this side of the border, Michael McCain of Maple Leaf Foods was named Business News Maker of the Year -- a year in which his company was found to be the source of a listeriosis outbreak linked to 20 deaths and hundreds of illnesses. To be fair, Mr. McCain took responsibility in a way that Peanut Corp. executives did not. He deserved recognition for his compassion and efforts to reassure a rattled public that it was safe to go back to the deli counter.
But that should not be the end of the story. The aggressive effort in the U.S. to quickly get questions answered about the tainted peanut outbreak there is instructive.
Payne goes on to say that already Americans know more about the mechanics and timeline of this salmonella outbreak than Canadians do about the gaps and failures than may have exacerbated the listeriosis outbreak.
Nearly seven months later, Canadians still don't know exactly who knew what when. There have been no answers to the crucial question of whether a quicker response could have saved lives and how a similar tragedy could be prevented or contained sooner. Until we know that, nothing has been learned from the 20 deaths. Instead of answers, we got a PR campaign, tasteless cold-cut jokes and a toothless and too-late investigation into what happened.
Canadian listeria coverage still sucks
Daughter Braunwynn returned to Ontario last night after a great visit.
Her super-sweet 16 is less than two weeks away, so during lunch on Sunday with Amy and Sorenne and Bob, we asked what she might be studying at university (not a fair question cause I still don’t know what I want to do when I grow up).
She mentioned science, psychology, maybe journalism – she liked writing.
Amy and I sorta jumped, saying that if she wanted to write, then write, and that maybe J-school wasn’t the best place to learn writing.
I teach a journalism class on food safety reporting, but there’s not much to teach: writers write, and just like scientists, they need to ask the right questions.
Braunwynn, the 15-year-old, gets it; Canadian journalists covering Michael McCain, Maple Leaf and listeria? Not so much.
There are exceptions, like Rob Cribb at the Star, but a couple of holiday puff pieces stood out. On Jan. 4, 2009, the Canadian Press correctly noted that the Canadian government has not yet named the leader of a promised probe into the listeriosis outbreak that killed 20 people -- a lag critics say discredits an already suspect process.
But then they go on to excessively quote the union dude who thinks that inspectors with beer-like listeria googles are the solution. He represents the food inspectors union. Of course he wants more inspectors. As new NC State professorial thingy Ben wrote, more inspectors is not the answer.
(1).jpg)
Then there’s the researchers. They always want more research. And new technology. Oh, and to blame consumers. Because you know, consumers are the weak link when it comes to ready-to-eat deli meats. And when the researcher making such public proclamations is an advisor to Maple Leaf, that should be disclosed. Journalism 101. I’m sure glad my previously pregnant wife didn’t rely on your expert advice.
Bert Mitchell had it right the other day when he wrote that while Michael McCain has been gathering year–end goodwill for his handling of the Maple Leaf listeria outbreak, “it is too early for applause. Effective long term solutions have not been put in place.”
For the budding journalists, there are still basic questions to be answered, questions that have nothing to do with more research, more inspectors, a public inquiry or any other narrow special interest, but questions that may help prevent any future unnecessary deaths of 20 people and unnecessary illness of hundreds if not thousands of people:
.jpg)
• who knew what when;
• why aren’t listeria test results publically available; and,
• if listeria is everywhere, why aren’t there warnings for vulnerable populations?
Would you ask your doctor if she washed her hands?
Where was that fresh produce grown? What temperature is medium-rare? Did the cook wash his hands after going to the bathroom?
I also recognize that most people -- including me -- feel socially awkward asking such questions.So, would you ask your doctor if he has washed his hands?
That's what Carmela Fragomeni of The Hamilton Spectator in Canada asked this morning.
Hamilton resident Maria Pimentel says,
"I'm not comfortable to ask him because maybe he'd get upset."
Linda VanRysell believes doctors would always automatically be washing their hands before examining a patient, stating,
"I assume they're professional."
Dr. David Higgins, chief of staff at St. Joe's in Hamilton, said if he were to fail to wash his hands, he hopes patients would called him on it, adding,
"I should thank the person for doing it. That's the ideal culture."
