Food safety again. Peanut butter, spinach, lettuce, cantaloupes, sprouts. That's just produce. There's the meat problem, too, from E. coli O157 and Salmonella to Mad Cow. Food production now involves long chains, often mixing ingredients from many sources and countries. Regulation of the food supply, now beyond the control of the individual consumer, needs to catch up. It's not likely to make much progress this way:
The government has new rules for preventing food poisoning in fresh-cut produce, but companies don't have to follow them.[snip]
In the new, voluntary rules, announced Monday by the Food and Drug Administration, fruit and vegetable processors are urged to adopt food safety plans similar to those in the meat industry.
"We've never before formally recommended that the industry adopt regulations such as" the meat industry's, said Nega Beru, director of FDA's Office of Food Safety. "So this is a first." (AP)
What's fresh cut produce and why is it a problem?
Fresh-cut produce is produce that is minimally processed (no lethal kill step) and altered in form by peeling, slicing, chopping, shredding, coring or trimming with or without washing or other treatment prior to being packaged for use by the consumer or a retail establishment. Examples of fresh-cut products are shredded lettuce, sliced tomatoes, salad mixes (raw vegetable salads), peeled baby carrots, broccoli florets, cut melons and sectioned grapefruit.
The fresh-cut produce sector is the fastest growing sector of the produce industry. As the fresh-cut sector grows, a larger volume and greater variety of fresh-cut products have become available. From 1996 to 2006, twenty-six percent of all outbreaks associated with fresh produce implicated fresh-cut produce.
If pathogens are present, the processing of fresh-cut produce by peeling, slicing, shredding, coring, or trimming may increase the risk of bacterial contamination and growth by breaking the natural exterior barrier of the produce thereby supplying nutrients for pathogens to grow. In addition, the high degree of handling common in fresh-cut operations may increase the risk of cross-contamination if adequate controls (e.g., adequate levels of free chlorine in a dump tank) are not in place. (FDA)
While the AP referred to the FDA announcement as "rules," they aren't rules. They are completely voluntary, unlike rules for the meat industry. There is reportedly nothing in the "rules" the industry doesn't know already, and, if they are responsible, already doing. Which we know they aren't (doing or responsible). It includes things like having adequate sanitation in the fields. Sanitation, as in "toilet."
The new guidance is "totally unenforceable," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group.
"While a grower or processor may chose to use the guidance one week, they could choose not to use it the next, and there's nothing the government can do if the grower or processor chooses not to use the standards," she said.
In the end the burden will rest with you, dear reader, as the FDA announcement makes clear:
Consumers can reduce their risk of illness from fresh-cut produce by following safe handling practices such as refrigerating the product after purchase; using only clean hands, utensils or dishes in preparing the product; and discarding the product when the "use by" date has expired. (FDA news release on produce guidance)
Now you know the "rules." Obey them. Or else.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Oh brother, this makes little sense if it's not going to be mandatory.
It boils down to responsibility, along with ethical behavior @ real concern for your fellow man. But ... if these types of behavior's aren't going to be taught and demanded by probably 80%? of those involved in supplying the food products, what's the use of new, voluntary rules?
Realize also that the people who do this type of food preparation are on a tight schedule and the boss is breathing down their shoulder to go fast.
revere, you eat mostly restaurant, correct? as you travel a great deal. What a dilemma for you.
FDA omits the single most effective voluntary consumer handling practice : don't eat unsafe produce.
Absolutely correct Greg however, how many people realize that other than those who are paying attention?
Many seem to have gotten to a point where it's acceptable for the government, institutions, business's, etc., to be the one's who are supposed to "take care of us". It's personal responsibility, always has been, always will be.
American's are in denial.
Yes, Lea, but the denial does not come naturally or easily.
We are trained, for decade or more at collective expense, and throughout our lives, for up to a third of our waking hours, to trust the experts and to obey the authorities. Then, we are hedged about by "public" interest and need-to-know rules, so that we have no alternative.
It is not responsibility which we deny, but enforced dependence.
We do not merely expect them to take care of us. We are trained, and often required by law, to trust them to take care of us.
Greg and Lea: one issue is, how is one to tell the difference between safe and unsafe produce? They don't look any different. One could say avoid fresh-cut produce, but if 26% of outbreaks are from it, that means the other 74% are from other fresh produce. Does that mean just avoid fresh produce? You can buy local, or from what you believe to be reputable companies, but without some sort of oversight, how do you know either makes you any safer.
I consider the protection of the government in matters like these less a matter of dependence as a matter of public safety. Most food companies are going to produce food in unsafe manners if it leads to greater profitability, unless somebody stops them. Who has the resources and authority to stop them? Only the government.
Caia, I agree to an extent that companies will produce food in an unsafe manner if it leads to greater profitability, and that there is a role for the government.
However, eating animal derived foods is inherently unsafe. There is a limit as to how safe we can make certain foods - making changes to prevent one organism will result in favourable conditions to another. The risk of food poisoning from animal derived foods has decreased dramatically since the industrial revolution.
However, consumers also need to do their part. We can go as far as we can towards reducing the risk of pathogens in food - but we cannot guarantee safety, which is why good food handling and correct cooking are important.
People cannot expect the government to wipe their ass for them - and (in this country at least) most producers are doing their best and using best practice to produce a safe product. It's the processors that we regulate, and for good reason - but even there, even if everything is done to best practice, the risk is not eliminated.
Life is a risky business.
Oh, I'm not saying that we should reuse cutting boards used for raw meat, or eat undercooked eggs, and then complain about government not protecting us.
But when it comes to fresh vegetables, or peanut butter, there's a reasonable expectation that we can eat them raw. If that ceases to be a reasonable expectation, because of biological, regulatory, or industrial realities, then that's information we should have. They should tell us if we shouldn't eat PB raw. (Can you imagine the outcry?)
My family regretfully set aside our usual spinach salads last summer (on the understanding that the dangerous e. coli was in the spinach, not just on it, so it couldn't be washed off). And the next time I did serve spinach to guests, it was in a cooked dish, so they could feel safe about eating it. But, the MD among the company said that she's more likely to assume there is some sort of contamination than that there isn't, and so she doesn't get fussed about it.
Life is risky... but I still prefer my peanut butter, spinach, or baby carrots not put me in the hospital. That the risk can't be eliminated doesn't mean reasonable steps to reduce it should be abandoned. And that's a role for government.
Revere,
Correct me if I am wrong. Is it true that the American government is trying to keep MUM about radio-active waste that has found its way into a large underground reservoir or body of water? Apparently the radio-active waste leaked out of a holding pen of some sort. The US government has spent $50 million (or is it $50 Billion?) to try to fix the problem - to no avail.
If true, it would make grocery shopping very difficult.
v.: Haven't heard this. Do you have a reference?
No. It is just a rumour. Silly me.
In Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser quotes William Heffernan of the University Of Missouri using the image of an hourglass to describe America's agricultural economy.
While Heffernan was speaking in economic terms, it's interesting to note that our food tales a similar path in the physical world. Produce from many different farms is mixed together, sharing contaminants, as it is processed and packed in large plants and then trucked all over the country. We knew this was a problem with meat. It was eye-opening to see contaminated greens pulled from shelves nationwide. If peanut butter can be sullied by the same process, it stands to reason that they problem is not with the food, but with the distribution process.
When trying to figure out what to eat, it may help to think about "untangling" the food distribution chain. Buy local produce at the grocery, patronize farmer's markets, find a Community Supported Agriculture project near you. Cook from scratch more and eat less fast food. Shop around and ask questions: there are still butchers that grind beef on site instead of repacking preground meat.
Shopping local costs more but cooking from scratch costs less. It evens out, but tastes better. Once the oil gets too expensive we'll have to feed ourselves this way, anyway, so we may as well get in practice.
V & Revere-I suspect that v is recalling something about the Hanford Site, which contains low and high level nuclear waste, and is at risk of contaminating the Columbia river.
Hanford site links
http://www.hanford.gov/docs/annualrp98/sumoverview.stm
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HCleanup.shtml
C.C.: Yes, I agree. I emailed v. separately to that effect.
Peanut butter is a shocker all right. Makes you wonder how they can contaminate it without deliberately innoculating.
It's difficult to imagine how we can assure our safety without trusting to government oversight. Probably those new inspection rules, which Revere wrote about.. don't ask don't tell.