'I'm gonna educate you' - or so says FDA
Whenever a group says the public needs to be educated about food safety, biotechnology, trans fats, organics or anything else, that group has utterly failed to present a compelling case for their cause. Individuals can choose to educate themselves about all sorts of interesting things, but the idea of .jpg)
educating someone is doomed to failure. And it’s sorta arrogant to state that others need to be educated; to imply that if only you understood the world as I understand the world, we would agree and dissent would be minimized.
On the same day the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its Strategic Plan for Risk Communication, which outlines the agency’s efforts to disseminate more meaningful public health information and has lots of pretty words about “two-way communication through enhanced partnerships,” FDA said its “new web videos educate consumers about food and medical product safety.”
No evidence is provided that anyone found the videos educational. And the language in the headline is not consistent with ”two-way communication.” What’s with the dualities? Good and bad, heaven and hell? How about multiple communications with a variety of audiences, to use bureau-speak; and chew gum at the same time.
It’s important to tell people how information is developed and released. We updated the bites.ksu.edu information protocol last week. But actions speak louder than words.
One of the tenets of effective risk communication to inform, discuss and participate in give and take when it comes to information, rather than educate. I co-wrote a book about it, 1997’s Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk. And people learn through stories, not facts.
.jpg)
There is a dearth of scientific studies applying proven risk communication concepts to issues of microbial food safety. There is, however, an abundance of academic, industrial and government pronouncements on how to improve communications activities related to food safety, based on anecdotal evidence and almost always citing the need for “educated consumers” or “a better-educated public.”
Such proposals invoke a one-way, authoritarian model of communication; and exactly how this mythical consumer will become better educated remains a mystery. What is known is that the traditional approach of scientists clearly explaining the facts is “naive—and probably a recipe for failure. ...
Too often, risk communicators are more concerned with educating the public, rather than first listening to them and then developing communication policies.”
Food Safety Education Month, whatever that is, ended yesterday. People are still eating this morning. I wonder if they got educated?
An honest Food Safety Education month would include food safety stories, tragic or otherwise, and a rigorous evaluation of what has worked, what hasn’t worked and what can be improved, rather than a checklist of ineffective and often inaccurate food safety instructions with the cumulative effect of blaming consumers. Telling people to wash their hands isn’t keeping the piss out of meals.
Canada: Salmonella in sprouts, people are probably sick
The last time the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said in a press release, “There are no confirmed illnesses associated with the consumption of these products,” 22 Canadians died and 53 were sickened with listeria. A cursory glance at CFIA press releases shows that when there are no sick people, CFIA will say, “there are no reported illnesses.”
So when CFIA announced a few minutes ago that it and Sunsprout Natural Foods are warning the public not to consume certain varieties of Sprouts Alive and Sun Sprout brands that contain onion sprouts because they may be contaminated with Salmonella and that, “There are no confirmed illnesses associated with the consumption of these products,” expect the sick to surface.
As best as I can tell, “no confirmed illnesses” means there is epidemiological evidence linking these sprouts and sick people, but CFIA doesn’t really believe in epidemiology, so they wait for the stagecoaches to go to the lab in Winnipeg and back with test results, before worrying people about some silly Salmonella. Or at least that’s what came out of the various listeria outbreak reports.
The Sunsprout Natural Foods involved in this recall is based in my hometown of Brantford, Ontario. I wonder if they have any relationship with SunSprout Enterprises Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska, that recalled Salmonella-contaminated sprouts in the U.S. Midwest in March 2009 after the sprouts made about 80 people barf.
The products in the current recall were distributed in Ontario and the Maritimes, and may have been sold in Quebec.
All Best Before codes up to and including August 27, 2009 of the following products are affected:
Brand
Product
Size
UPC
Sprouts Alive
Baby Onion Sprouts
70 g (2.5 oz)
0 69022 00032 0
sun sprout
Alfalfa & Onion Sprouts
135g (4.76 oz)
0 57621 13506 2f
Cocaine found in Red Bull drinks
Cases of Red Bull are being pulled from store shelves by officials in several countries due to the detection of cocaine in the products.
Trace amounts of the drug (0.4 micrograms per liter) were detected in Red Bull Cola by German authorities two weeks ago.
A few days later, Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that the cocaine level was too low to pose a health risk. However, bans on the drink were initiated in several German states due to concerns that their sale may violate narcotics laws.
When the Department of Health in Taiwan heard about the German’s discovery, they decided to test Red Bull Energy Drink—another product by the same manufacturer. They, too, found 0.4 micrograms of cocaine for each liter tested.
A statement made by the folks at Red Bull two days ago said,
"It would have been absolutely impossible for Asian (or any other) authorities to have found traces of cocaine in Red Bull Energy Drink. We believe that Asian authorities mistakenly applied concerns about Red Bull Simply Cola to Red Bull Energy Drink, a completely different product with an entirely different formula. Nevertheless, we had Red Bull Energy Drink product samples from Asia analyzed by an independent and accredited institute and confirmed that Red Bull Energy Drink does not contain any cocaine."
The same day, officials at the Centre for Food Safety in Hong Kong said a laboratory analysis found 0.1 and 0.3 micrograms of the illegal drug per liter in samples of Red Bull Sugar-free, as well as Red Bull Cola and Red Bull Energy Drink.
Are they lying, too, Red Bull?
The remainder of the statement by Red Bull said,
"A German authority had raised concerns regarding the use of de-cocainized coca leaf extract in Red Bull Simply Cola. …
"De-cocainized coca leaf extracts are used as flavoring in food products around the world and are considered to be safe. Indeed, in 21 C.FR. 182.20, the Food and Drug Administration regulations provide that it is acceptable and safe to use de-cocainized coca in food products in the United States."
Each country—and each consumer for that matter—is entitled to determine the level of risk that is acceptable to them. Food producers should respect that, and provide the information needed to make those determinations.
They should also provide sufficient data when calling anyone a liar. People who are already pulling products likely need more data than results of an undisclosed number of samples tested by a single, unnamed institute. Less arrogance is definitely in order.
Food and Drug Administration leaders say: we're risk communicators in charge
The newly anointed leaders of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say in a scientific journal this week that,
“… one of the greatest challenges facing any public health agency is that of risk communication.”
.jpg)
Lots of public health types say that. If only there were better communication, everyone would get along.
Life is messier than that.
Communication is one of those cop-out words that people and bureaucrats routinely use but really don’t want to use; the complications are far too messy.
Because communication would involve the actual transmission of feelings, and the hurt, pain, joy and angst of whatever anyone went through.
So when Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., and Joshua M. Sharfstein, M.D., the commissioner, and the principal deputy commissioner, of the Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday that,
“We all accept small risks in our daily lives, from the risk of falling in the shower and sustaining a head injury to the risk of having a car accident on the way to the grocery store. One reason we are rarely fearful of these risks is our perception that we have control over them. When it comes to food and drugs, even small risks can cause considerable fear and anxiety, especially when they seem to be out of our control. Yet all pharmaceuticals have some potential adverse effects, and many raw foods may harbor natural pathogens.”
I fell asleep.
The author’s continued,
“Transparency is a potent element of a successful strategy to enhance the work of the FDA and its credibility with the public. Whenever possible, the FDA should provide the data on which it bases its regulatory decisions and other guidance and explain its decision-making process to the public.”
Right. So please provide public, transparent guidelines for going public about outbreaks of foodborne illness.
US waits to react to flu discovery in Canadian pigs
As a backlog of state and federal lab test results reached the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the total number of confirmed cases of H1N1 in the US climbed to 244 in 34 states, the Associated Press reported this weekend.
The Globe and Mail reported numbers from the World Health Organization, stating, “Canada, for its part, has tallied 101 cases in seven provinces.”
When news broke that a Canadian swine herd was found suffering from a flu thought to be H1N1, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a statement assuring that, “this detection does not change the situation here in the United States.”
The statement continued:
“Today's discovery will not impact our borders or trading with Canada. As prescribed by the World Organization for Animal Health guidelines, any trade restrictions must be based on science so at this time, we are awaiting confirmatory test results before considering any action."
Additionally, while the CDC works on a H1N1 vaccine for humans, the USDA announced it is trying to develop a vaccine for swine. But that’s just standard protocol when a new virus appears.
It seems they’re taking no rash action until there’s evidence to suggest it’s necessary. That sounds like a wise use of resources to me.
The World Health Organization is similarly waiting for evidence before sounding the alert to a pandemic. As reported by the New York Times,
“The World Health Organization announced an increase in the number of confirmed cases of swine flu on Saturday, but said there was no evidence of sustained spread in communities outside North America, which would fit the definition of a pandemic.”
“Dr. Michael J. Ryan, the director of the World Health Organization global alert and response team, said in a teleconference from Geneva, ‘We have to expect that Phase 6 (the level of a pandemic) will be reached. We have to hope that it is not.’”
The public should be made aware of existing risks and what's being done to manage them. But, there is no good reason to waste resources pretending to manage imaginary risks.
Act on what you know and seek out what you don't--for the good of the public.
Flu in Canadian swine
Someone finally found the H1N1 swine flu in pigs.
After I bashed them for allotting resources for hog surveillance when little evidence for such a need existed, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization is now applauding Canada for spotting the flu in a herd of Alberta swine.
However, a person—not other swine—sickened the pigs.
healthzone.ca reports that a carpenter at an Alberta hog farm went to work on April 14 after a visit to Mexico and may have brought the H1N1 flu with him. Within a couple weeks, about a tenth of the 2,200-hog operation showed signs of the flu.
The affected hogs were quarantined and all are recovering or have already recovered. Only one other person who has had contact with the pigs shares signs of illness.
Across Canada, however, canada.com reports that another 15 cases of H1N1 flu were confirmed last week, bringing the country’s total to 34. One case was a student at Beairsto Elementary School, which responded by closing for a week.
Additionally, the story reports,
“The federal government will launch a public awareness campaign Friday to inform Canadians about the swine flu as the number of cases in Canada climbed to 34 and the number of worldwide cases surpassed 270.”
I hope these messages for the public contain more information than “you can’t get the flu from food,” which is about all I’ve heard so far.
In a press release in the US, the director of science and technology for the National Pork Producers Council, Dr. Jennifer Greiner, was quoted as saying,
"People cannot get the flu from eating or handling pork. The flu is a respiratory illness, it's not a food-borne illness."
Then can someone please explain to their country how to manage these respiratory risks?
Let’s talk more about what the risks are than what they aren’t.
Finding the right words
Valentine’s Day isn’t so much about the chocolate or the candlelight or the bling; it’s a reminder of the kind words that should be shared between lovers all the other days of the year.
I didn’t get that off a greeting card.
Finding the right words can be rewarding. As Jimmy Buffett sings,
“But the right word at the right time
May get me a little hug
That’s the difference between lightening
And a harmless lightening bug.”
Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California, said many more children will die from being hit by lightning than tainted peanut butter, which has so far killed nine and sickened 636 people.
"Are you going to prohibit your child from going outside every time it rains? If you're rational, what you'll do is, if there's lightning outside, you'll keep them in, and when that's done, you let them go out safely and go to school in the rain. I think this is the same thing. It's very reasonable to take peanut butter off the menu until we knew what was going on, but then it's not anymore."
Risk comparisons are risky. I’m not sure how lightening compares to the deliberate, criminal, douchebaggery of knowingly sending out product laced with Salmonella.
Associate Professor Mark Kantor with the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Maryland blamed the current outbreak on former U.S. president Ronald Reagan (1980-1988).
"The current problem of salmonella in peanuts can be traced back to the Reagan presidency when a nationwide climate of deregulation began.”
If someone like Stewart Parnell, CEO of Peanut Corporation of America, wants to break the law, it will get broken, regardless of who is President.
Others have exploited the survey route for instant news coverage.
On Thursday, a couple of PR firms released an online survey showed that 23 percent of consumers questioned said the most recent food scare would change their long-term buying habits.
“Almost all of the 501 consumers surveyed (93 percent) said they had recently read about or heard of food safety issues and recalls.”
This is not news. It’s an Internet survey to apparently draw attention to “Burson-Marsteller’s expertise in food communications and product recalls.”
These are the same people who brag, Burson Helps Old Navy Celebrate the "First Official Day of Flip-Flops"
In Seabrook, Texas, Dayna Steele is more worried that her 9-year-old son will become sick if he doesn't eat peanut butter. After years of trying to get him to eat other foods, his pediatrician said, "He's fine. Let him eat all the peanut butter he wants. When he meets a girl, he'll start eating something else."
Feel the Valentine’s Day love.
.jpg)
Recalls wreak havoc, but safety sells
At the grocery store yesterday I found jars of Kroger peanut butter stacked nearly waist-high on display at the end of an aisle. Curious, I circled the display, thinking I might find a sign saying “Does not contain Salmonella” or something to that effect. There was no such ad.
Why aren’t the makers of safe peanut butter bragging about it?
K-LOVE is always in the background when I do my writing.
While one of the K-LOVE news anchors was updating listeners on the Peanut Corp. salmonella outbreak, the DJ mentioned he put off buying a jar of peanut butter at the grocery store the night before. He felt it wiser to wait.
Peanut Corp., the FDA, and several snack manufacturers
—including General Mills and Kroger—have warned against eating products made with peanut butter and/or peanut paste produced by Peanut Corp.
FDA may not be entirely sure what products those are, but has said many times,
"We don't have concern about the national, name-brand peanut butter that's sold in jars at supermarkets and retail outlets."
Consumers are wary anyway.
Part of the problem could be the misleading images (such as the graphic above by ABC News) put forth by the media.
It could just be that recalls are scary.
After the Maple Leaf listeria outbreak, Canadians cut back on deli meats of all brands and even stopped buying hot dogs. People defensively avoided anything recognized to support the growth of listeria.
People value safe food.
If given a compelling story of how companies and industries identify and control risks, they might make different buying decisions.
King Nut stops talking
King Nut is evidently done talking about peanut butter.
Following a comprehensive recall by Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) of 21 lots of its peanut butter—including the King Nut product found by the Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture to contain a strain of Salmonella genetically identical to that found in over 425 sick people across the nation—King Nut deferred all further questions about the outbreak to PCA.
Clamming up is not good risk communication.
.jpg)
However, after a couple unfounded claims, it may be wiser that King Nut stop talking.
King Nut’s last statement to the press was a letter from President and CEO Martin Kanan refuting the suggestion that contaminated King Nut peanut butter could have caused people in 43 different states to become sick.
Kanan argued, in bold font,
“We only distribute in seven states and therefore King Nut peanut butter could not possibly be the source of a nationwide outbreak of salmonella. (King Nut peanut butter is distributed to food service companies in Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, Arizona, Idaho and New Hampshire.)”
Really? It couldn’t possibly? How do you know?
Do you track the consumption of all the peanut butter you distribute? Many states with sick people share borders with those seven states, don’t they? Maybe it’s not probable that all 425 people were sickened by King Nut peanut butter, but it’s still possible.
It’s a better idea to talk intelligently about those small possibilities than to make big claims that can’t really be proven.
.jpg)
Another silly claim I noticed was found upon closer inspection of the January 10 press release. There, I realized Kanan did say “sorry” once. But he also said,
“All other King Nut products are safe and not included in this voluntary recall.”
Really? They’re all safe? How do you know?
Do you have data? The pinky promise (i.e. certificate of safety) PCA gave you didn’t seem to hold up, so why should we believe you?
Talking about the possible risks—however minute—is the only way to gain the trust of an intelligent public. Pushing unfounded beliefs or assumptions onto society is just one effective way to create chaos.
Just ask the South Koreans.
Talking about peanut butter
I know Doug has some beef with peanut butter. He’s got every right to avoid the foods he can’t trust to keep his family healthy.
.jpg)
I, on the other hand, have a great relationship with peanut butter. It’s the nutrition that keeps me in. Once, for a high school project, I served a church full of friends and family a slew of dishes made with peanut butter and then told them how they were being saved from heart disease, breast cancer, and diabetes with those delicious monounsaturated fats and a low glycemic index.
This was after writing a 20-page paper on the nutritional excellence of the dietary staple. (Elizabeth Weise of USA Today called it a “sandwich spread”, but that’s entirely too limiting… maybe even offensive.)
Nutrition, however, is no consolation to people sickened by Salmonella contamination. Barfing (or even barfing potential) can turn anyone against a food pretty fast.
That would be why it was so important for the companies involved to start talking to consumers at the first sign of a connection between sick people and King Nut peanut butter.
King Nut Companies was first up, making it abundantly clear that the peanut butter in question “is 
NOT manufactured by King Nut,” but is merely distributed by them.
In another release, King Nut explained,
“Before distributing peanut butter, we require certification from our supplier that the product has been tested and is safe.”
While that fact relieves them of some responsibility, it does NOT remove all of it. Acquiring food from safe sources is expected of the company with their name on the jar.
Sheesh.
I felt a little more love coming from Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), who manufactured the peanut butter. Their press release opened with an expression of “deep concern about the apparent finding of salmonella in a container of one of its products.”
PCA’s statement went on to explain,
“PCAs facility and products are frequently and rigorously tested for salmonella and other microbiological contamination, including hourly sampling during processing and subsequent analysis by an outside, independent laboratory. No salmonella has ever been found in any of PCAs product.”
The public disclosure of product and environmental sampling is important in good risk communication. I hope to see more of this as the investigation into the source of the contamination continues.
Jim Romahn: Maple Leaf, Michael McCain and unanswered questions
Canadian reporter Jim Romahn writes:
Michael H. McCain is a wily strategist.
.jpg)
First, as president and chief executive officer of Maple Leaf Foods Inc., he made a big deal of dismissing advice from the company’s lawyers and accountants to not admit any liability for Canada’s most notorious case of food poisoning last summer.
He won praise from business reporters and public relations consultants for that.
In fact, the spin doctors had much more to say about that than the failure to safeguard consumers of Maple Leaf deli meats.
Now McCain has pulled an even better trick.
He has claimed the high moral ground in settling class-action lawsuits.
For $27 million, tops, he has bought freedom from a court case that could have proven highly embarrassing to Maple Leaf.
The ongoing coverage could well have become the final nail in consumer confidence in Maple Leaf products.
The lawyers were sure to ask who knew what and when.
They were sure to ask about the degree of plant contamination as the company continued to ship products, failing to first hold them for testing and clearance.
That, of course, is what’s being done now.
The lawyers will trot out evidence that more than half of the samples – one each from different batches or products – collected by municipal health units across Ontario contained Listeria monocytogenes.
The lawyers would no doubt challenge McCain’s claim that Listeria are so common in food-processing plants that it’s challenging at the best of times to eliminate them. They might have conceded that to be true of listeria in general, but would ask how Maple Leaf handled the more dangerous strain that showed up at the Bartor Road plant in Toronto.
The lawyers will ask why Maple Leaf ignored Health Canada warnings that cold cuts should not be served to people with weak immune systems – i.e. the elderly, infants and young children, pregnant women and those under medical treatment to suppress their immune systems.
Why do Maple Leaf’s cold cuts fail to warn these people about Health Canada’s advice? Of course, the same could be said of the labels on any Canadian-made cold cuts. Buyer beware!
The last place Canadians can turn to for answers to these questions is the inquiry Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised in the heated exchanges of an election campaign as the Listeria crisis continued.
I notice that Harper did not promise a PUBLIC inquiry.
He has not named a person or panel to head an inquiry.
He has not promised to reveal a report of an inquiry or its recommendations.
I’m certain the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Maple Leaf will be lobbying hard for Harper and his government to forget the promise of an inquiry. And, failing that to “contain the damage,” as the public relations are wont to advise.
So two goals scored by McCain so far. Will he make it a hat trick.
I sincerely hope not, but given Canada’s record on food safety in the food business, I’m far from optimistic.
Or as The Kids in the Hall asked, Who’s to Blame?
Silence of the lettuce
If there’s one result from the Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak this summer it’s this: public health types sure are reluctant to finger fresh produce in outbreaks of foodborne illness.
.jpg)
On Tuesday, a spokesman for the bureaucrats club know as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed they are looking to U.S. suppliers of E. coli-infected romaine lettuce that has been linked to 153 illnesses across southern Ontario, “but he had few other details.”
On Monday, something called the Produce Safety Project, an Initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts at Georgetown University concluded in a report that weaknesses in food safety policy, organization and communications were all displayed during this summer's outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul.
The report, "Breakdown: Lessons to Be Learned from the 2008 Salmonella Saintpaul Outbreak," represents an in-depth review of the public record of last summer's Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak that caused illnesses in more than 1,400 people across the country. For a full copy of the report and the executive summary click here: http://www.producesafetyproject.org/reports?id=0001
Highlights and recommendations from the report include:
The need for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use its existing statutory authorities to establish mandatory and enforceable safety standards for fresh produce. While FDA officials said the outbreak showed the need for these standards, they said Congress needs to pass legislation to grant it explicit authority to do so. However, the report notes that FDA has already used existing authorities to put in place preventive safety standards for seafood in 1995 and for juice in 2001.
The need for organizational reforms throughout the public health system for a more coordinated outbreak response. The report raises questions about how timely and effectively data was shared between public health agencies and if it contributed to a delayed identification of jalapeno and serrano peppers as a vehicle for Salmonella Saintpaul.
The need to have established and unified risk communication plans in place before an outbreak. The report documents "dueling" public health messages from various agencies announcing the outbreak, and questions why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its presentation of data numerous times in the middle of the outbreak.
.jpg)
I haven’t read the report in detail but will get to it. And while everyone is pointing fingers, recall that epidemiology is a messy thing, but it can prevent people from barfing. Self-censorship could be worse.
Both CFIA and FDA need to establish clear and transparent protocols on when to go public in outbreaks of foodborne illness. No one will be happy, but it will provide a basis for discussion and a way to move forward; once it’s written down, it can be improved.
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.
Canadian food safety bureaucrats still aren't that into you
If Canadian cattle or chickens get sick, the public is told all about it.
If Canadian people get sick, not so much.
.gif)
That’s what I wrote in Dec. 2006 in a piece called, Sorry, bureaucrats just aren’t that into you.
I’ve said the same thing for the past month as the listeria in Canadian cold-cuts outbreak became public. The latest figures show at least 18 dead and 60 confirmed or suspected ill.
The several-week delay in telling Canadians about listeria in Maple Leaf cold-cuts, coupled with the self-congratulatory and exceedingly false statements about the superiority of Canadian disease surveillance is just another episode in the arrogant and dysfunctional father-knows-best approach to providing health advice practiced by various Canadian authorities.
Dr. Phil would say the relationship between officials at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Canadian public is like a couple headed for divorce: they don't speak unless forced to, and when asked, it's denial, deceit and deception.
Rob Cribb of the Toronto Star reports today that a major review of Canada's food recall system three years ago identified serious problems that experts say continue to threaten public safety.
“Spotty inspections across the country, delays in warning the public about tainted food and a lack of follow-up to prevent repeat outbreaks are documented in the government report, obtained through access to information legislation.
(1).jpg)
The 2005 Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) review predicts concerns that have emerged from the current Maple Leaf listeria outbreak that has claimed 18 lives.
"There is no clear policy on when a recall requires public warning," the report states.
Timely public disclosure of food risks re-emerged as an issue last month when it took three weeks for officials to warn the public of tainted Maple Leaf meat. …
In the aftermath of the outbreak, public health officials and politicians were quick to reassure Canadians that the country has one of the best food safety systems in the world. But behind the scenes, the review documents a history of serious internal concerns: "Most findings in this report have previously been identified by the various parties involved in food recalls."
The CFIA audit paints a picture of a sometimes-chaotic system where turf wars can impact the public's need to know about food warnings. …
Doug Powell, a Canadian food safety expert working at Kansas State University, said any warnings officials received from the review appear to have been ignored. "It's contentment with mediocrity. The bureaucrats don't seem to care very much. They all talk a good game, but they never think it will happen to them, so they just go on."
I can imagine Dr. Phil asking in his Texas drawl "How's that working out for ya’ll?"
The most frustrating part is that CFIA is staffed with individuals who are excellent public advocates and spokespeople. On issues relating to mad cow disease or avian influenza, CFIA goes out of its way to communicate with Canadians, perhaps fearing that any crisis of confidence will reduce sales and impact Canadian farms.
Yet when it comes to the 11 to 13 million foodborne illnesses in Canada each and every year, CFIA has adopted a policy of don't ask, don't tell.
Maybe Dr. Phil can get the public and CFIA into a relationship based on open communication, trust, and respect, but I doubt it. Time to move on.
Canadian consumers, if you have Maple Leaf deli meats, it's your fault
In possibly the worst – or most incongruent – press release ever written, the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education, the group with the excessively explanatory name, says they have "issued some simple guidelines to reduce the risk of microbial foodborne illnesses. This is of special interest to Canadians in light of recent coverage of listeriosis.”
So for all the money this group gets from government and industry, they can’t be bothered to say, hey, if you’re pregnant or immunocomprimised, you shouldn’t eat this stuff.
Instead, just more messages funded by taxpayers telling them to feel good about the food they buy.
This is the same group that wanted to use a Mrs. Doubtfire-inspired food safety spokesthingy to reach out to university students, until the trans-generders in Canada got word and forced the campaign to disappear.
University of Guelph: 'We take pride in our food services and food safety' and our ability to infect people with E. coli
So says the health unit, in a local newspaper report. The university didn’t actually say anything, other than to issue a Kremlinesque request to talk to people who’ve been barfing.“In the interests of the health of our community, the University is posting this bulletin. Representatives of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health are investigating a possible E. coli outbreak.
“Symptoms of E. coli include diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea and/or vomiting. If you or a family member recently had, or currently has any of those symptoms, please call Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health at 1-877-844-8653. For more information about E. coli go to www.wdghu.org”
A university spokesthingy did tell the paper, "We take pride in our food services and food safety."
Risk communication 101: Better to come clean up front than let the details slowly – or explosively – shit out.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency can communicate about risk - at least when Evans is involved
.jpeg)
When counseling future PhDs, I still recall, how after successfully defending my PhD, driving back to campus after a celebratory lunch during which I ate nothing – Linda Harris, you remember – I had to ask Bill and my supervisor, Mansel Griffiths, to pull over while going up the Gordon Street hill so I could vomit. I hurled again as we arrived in the parking lot outside the food science building.
It may have been stress. It may have been a comment on Guelph.
Anyway, we wrote this book, it got decent reviews, and then a few years ago, Bill asked if I wanted to publish a second edition.
I said no.
My explanation was, been there, done that, armchair quarterbacking through retrospective case studies was interesting as a student, but I was on the frontlines, throwing out risk messages and taking arrows. I quoted a Neil Young line about how I’ve been on the road and I’ve been in the ditch and the ditch is more interesting.
He didn’t respond.
But he did publish a second edition, in which his name was first. Males are always compensating for something.
I had nothing to do with the second edition. Although I did e-mail Bill after Canada’s first homegrown case of mad cow disease was discovered in May 2003. He had become publicly vocal about failures of the Canadian regulators, so I asked him, why weren’t you that vocal when we were writing a book, with Mad Cows in the title, back in 1996.
He said I had bad manners and wouldn’t talk to me until I improved my manners, the manners that children learn from their mothers.
Guess I haven’t learned.
But if I’m going to briefly resume the armchair quarterback position, kudos to Brian Evans of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Evans, executive vice president, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and chief veterinary officer for Canada, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday that,
“The health and safety of Canadians is, and will always remain, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's highest priority.
In 2007, the CFIA undertook a strategic review to ensure our resources are allocated to where there is the greatest need to ensure the health and safety of Canadians and to provide the best value for taxpayers.
There was no five-per-cent reduction in funding for the CFIA as a result of this exercise. The savings identified in the review were redirected to food safety to support Canada's Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan.
The 2008 budget allocated more than $113 million for this action plan which will result in more inspectors and increased surveillance of domestic and imported foods. We continue to modernize our system to better protect Canadians, enhance the safety and reliability of consumer, food, and health products, and ensure we maintain one of the most stringent safety systems in the world.
We are continually modernizing and improving our inspection systems to meet the challenges of a changing environment whether it is emerging food safety risks or changes to technology or the marketplace.
There has been no reduction of inspectors. In fact, the number has risen to 3,020 by March 2008 from 2,820 in 2006. The number of inspectors will continue to grow under that food and consumer safety action plan.
As always, before any changes are phased in, CFIA will consult with stakeholders on the implementation of program changes. Any proposal that would change our regulatory system would be based on international standards to provide the highest level of trust of Canadians and our trading partners.
Any changes to the federal inspection system will always include strong enforcement and compliance action by the CFIA to make sure industry meets the requirement to produce safe food. Food safety is and always will be the CFIA's top priority.
I’ve complemented Evans before, in a paper that was published last year.
While risk analysis theory is fundamentally important, how such theory is put into action during actual outbreaks of foodborne illness or crises of confidence can be instructive and better elucidate the importance of individual components. For example, on May 20, 2003, Canada publicly announced its first home-grown case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). But, unlike every other country that has discovered BSE, consumption of beef actually increased. While price discounts, advertising, and promotional statements from various social actors about the safety of Canadian beef probably contributed to the sales increase, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was completely transparent, publicly showcasing -- in the form of daily press conferences lead by Canada's chief veterinarian, Dr. Brian Evans -- a vigilant, proactive regulatory system, while acknowledging the likelihood that the disease was not limited to just one animal. In essence, Dr. Evans and his team provided daily updates that said, this is what we know, this is what we don't know, and this is what we're doing to find out more. And when we find out more, you will hear it from us first. Transparency, along with efforts to demonstrable that actions match words, is the best way to enhance consumer confidence.
Being on the frontlines is far more interesting than academic babble.
He said, she said: talking about tomatoes
On July 1, 2008, Jonathan D. Rockoff of the Baltimore Sun, and many others, reported that investigators probing the salmonella outbreak that mysteriously keeps infecting Americans have expanded their hunt beyond tomatoes and are looking to see whether other produce may be responsible, federal health officials confirmed yesterday.
It was the strongest indication to date by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that weeks of focus on tomatoes as the culprit may have been a mistake, something that state health officials and other scientists increasingly fear."The tomato trail is still hot. It's a question of whether other products are getting hotter.”
Dr. David Acheson, associate FDA commissioner for foods
"If they say it's not tomatoes, then how many other commodities will be affected? We have a lot of reasons to be angry."
Tom Nassif, president, Western Growers Association
"Things definitely have to get better. No one in public health and no one in industry can be satisfied how this outbreak was handled."
Amy Philpott, United Fresh Produce Association
"In a digital age should we still be using paper and pencil to try to figure these things out. It certainly seems illogical at this point that we don't have a more expeditious way to deal with traceability."
FDA’s Acheson, wondering whether pushing the food industry to move to computerized record keeping might speed investigations in the future.
"We might have added every other vegetable in the country. This is crazy, absolutely crazy."
Reggie Brown, executive vice president, Florida Tomato Growers Exchange
"It is like a detective trying to solve a case. We often have to rely on people's memory of things that are not very memorable, such as what they ate last week or the week before. They may not realize or remember that the things they ate have many different ingredients."
Robert Tauxe, Centers for Disease Control
There's a growing misconception in the public that if tomatoes really were to blame, the outbreak would only have lasted six weeks. That's just not true, he said, pointing to farms that rotate harvests so as to keep producing tomatoes for months.
David Acheson, FDA's associate commissioner for foods
"I really think that what Katrina did to FEMA, this salmonella issue is going to do the FDA. They are going to have to learn to be much more prudent in ringing the alarm bell until they determine the source of whatever contamination they may be dealing with.”
Bob Spencer of West Coast Tomato, Florida
Pesticides, risk and regulation - Health Canada gets this message right
I tried to explain how municipalities, and now the province of Ontario, were proposing bans on the so-called cosmetic use of pesticides, even if the use of such chemicals had been declared safe by scientists working for the federal government.
.jpeg)
I have no intention of getting wound up in the pros, cons or otherwise of chemical use. But what has been absent in the public discussion of various risks is the voice of the government regulator, which can lead to the creation of an information vacuum, which can lead to all kinds of erroneous information amplified through various social media. It’s a well-documented phenomena, and I co-authored a 1997 book about it, Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk. So it was an unexpected surprise when Richard Aucoin, acting executive director of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, penned a lucid, articulate, and well-thought out letter which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen.
“Health Canada's priorities are the health and safety of Canadians and their food supply, and this primary mandate is applied when approving pesticides for use in Canada.
Under the Pest Control Products Act, if a pesticide (herbicide, insecticide, fungicide) meets our stringent health and environmental safety standards and proves value in its application, it must be approved for use. Only those products that meet Canada's strict health and safety standards are registered for sale and use in Canada.
When determining if a pesticide can be used in Canada, Health Canada conducts extensive health and environmental scientific reviews.
Testing methods must have adhered to accepted international standards. The evaluation takes into account the available scientific information on potential health and environmental effects from publicly available studies including epidemiological and incident reports both nationally and internationally.
Health Canada employs over 300 qualified scientists dedicated to the evaluation of pesticides, many of whom have doctorates and masters credentials in the fields of human health sciences, environmental and agricultural sciences. This team carefully scrutinizes the scientific information available on all of the components of a product, including both the active and non-active ingredients.
In addition, before Health Canada makes a final decision on whether to allow the use of a pesticide, the Canadian public is invited to submit comments and questions.
All chemical substances have inherent risks, which is why Health Canada has a dedicated regulatory program in place to review pesticides.
Given the rigour of the evaluation process, we are confident that the pesticides approved for use in Canada, including lawn and garden products, can be used safely under the prescribed circumstances indicated on the label.
Canadians should use pesticides judiciously, carefully follow label directions, and take measures to become better informed about their safe and effective use.
Any questions about pesticides can be addressed to Health Canada's Pesticide Information Services at 1-800-267-6315.”
Raw milk and crypto in pools -- policy choices and public health
And they often don't say much.
But there are examples of officials doing their jobs and being accountable to the public they serve. In the aftermath of the first case of homegrown bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Canada in May, 2003, Brian Evans, the chief veterinarian for the government of Canada, did an excellent job of explaining here's what we know, here's what we don't know, here's what we're doing to find out more, and whatever we find out, you'll hear it from me first.
Two public health officials have stepped out in the past two days and offered their analysis on a couple of persistent health risks: raw milk and parasites in swimming pools.
Yesterday, Dr. Stephen Ostroff, director, Bureau of Epidemiology, Pennsylvania Department of Health, wrote in the Lebanon Daily News that,
"In light of recent discussions pertaining to raw-milk health issues, the Pennsylvania Department of Health continues to advise consumers that raw milk is an inherently unsafe product regardless of how it is produced. While the permitting process unquestionably enhances the safety margin of raw milk, and we strongly endorse this program, it is not a substitute for milk pasteurization.…
Last year, an outbreak of salmonellosis due to consumption of raw milk sold in south-central Pennsylvania produced 29 illnesses. Sadly, many of the victims were children who had no choice in the kind of milk their parents purchased for them. Indeed, the department is currently investigating another raw-milk-associated outbreak of campylobacter infections. So far, more than 54 illnesses have been reported.
While standard hygiene and production practices can reduce the risk from consuming raw milk, they simply cannot eliminate it. In a 2006 survey of Pennsylvania dairy farms, pathogens were found in 13 percent of bulk tank raw-milk samples. Therefore, the department believes it is necessary to warn consumers about the risks associated with raw milk and to urge persons with immune disorders, pregnant women and young children to avoid consuming this product in the interest of protecting the public’s health."
Today, David N. Sundwall, executive director of the Utah Department of Health, wrote in The Salt Lake Tribune that,
.jpg)
"The UDOH, along with our partners at Utah's local health departments, carefully considered whether to restrict young children from pools. Young children are more likely to become ill from crypto and more likely to leave poop in the pool. While it might seem like common sense to ban them, we cannot say that they caused the outbreak or that banning them would prevent another one.Children have been swimming in public pools in Utah in past years when outbreaks didn't occur. To our knowledge, no state bans children from public pools. Older children and adults, who have control of their bowels when healthy, are also susceptible to "leaking" if they swim with diarrhea.
We chose to continue to allow children to swim with swim diapers and waterproof swim pants. We believe this will help prevent contamination of the pool, but it isn't foolproof.
Parents of young children need to act responsibly and with common sense. They need to monitor their children and give them frequent potty breaks. Most important, they need to keep them out of the pools when they are ill with diarrhea and for two weeks afterward.
The UDOH takes seriously its responsibility to protect people from health threats like cryptosporidium. After last summer's outbreak, we considered multiple measures to help prevent a recurrence this summer. Preventing crypto transmission will require a combination of changes at pools and changes in behavior."
Both Ostroff and Sundwall are too be commended. You may not agree with what they say, but at least you know why they came to the positions they advocate. Public health types, please speak out.
Eat this, you'll be fine
On Saturday President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras downed some homegrown cantaloupe for a CNN news crew, proclaiming, "I eat this fruit without any fear. It’s a delicious fruit. Nothing happens to me!”
Both were continuing a questionable tradition that may actually amplify the concerns of citizens when the safety of certain foods is scrutinized: roll out the politician to consume the food in question.
The list is long:
• Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien scarfed back a burger after the first case of mad cow disease was discovered in Canada in May 2003;
• French President Jacques Chirac and future French president Nicolas Sarkozy consumed cooked chicken during the International Agriculture show in Paris in March 2006 to bolster confidence after an outbreak of avain influenza;
• Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said in 2006 he often fed salmon to his own children after Russia banned imports of fresh Norwegian salmon because of worries about toxic metals;
• Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell lunched at a Philadelphia Taco Bell in Dec. 2006 after an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to lettuce sickened 71; and,
• most famously, former U.K. Agriculture Minister John Gummer feeding a hamburger to his four-year-old daughter Cordelia as concerns about the safety of British beef mounted in 1990 (left).
.jpg)
Do people believe politicians? How about company executives?
In 2000, 14,700 Japanese were sickened and 180 hospitalized after Snow Brand milk employees failed to properly clean factory pipes for weeks. As reported in The Economist, "At one point during Snow Brand’s latest poisoning scare, its befuddled boss fled a press conference shouting, 'I haven’t slept at all in the past week.'"
Snow Brand has a bit of a reputation for dramatics.
"When, almost half a century ago, some 1,900 school children fell ill after drinking Snow Brand’s powdered milk, a dismissive company executive confidently downed a glass of the drink in front of the press to allay fears of contamination. A few hours later, as expected, he was rushed to a bathroom."
Several years ago, Health Canada proposed to ban the sale of cheeses derived from raw milk, but they failed to provide a compelling case for such a ban. They also ignored the cultural and social factors—the enjoyment—that lead some people to rank specific cheeses like fine wines. Raw milk cheeses can contain the bacterium Listeria which can cause life-threatening illness and lead to miscarriages, but such cases simply had not been seen in Canada (which does not mean such cases did not exist). This left health officials arguing that such cheeses should be banned, even in the absence of Canadian-based scientific evidence to warrant such a ban. The Minister of Health at the time, David Dingwall, was soon in Quebec, scarfing down raw milk cheese for the television cameras.
People make risk/benefit decisions every time they enter an automobile, smoke a cigarette, have a drink, eat fat or enter into a relationship. Rather than eating up in front of the camera, governments, executives, even local farmers, should provide data to back up their claims of safety.
Douglas Powell is scientific director of the International Food Safety Network at Kansas State University.
