Food Safety Magazine, February/March 2013

Despite developments in traceability systems, it is often impossible to preciselydetermine what actually causes a food to become contaminated. The technology existsto trace meat back to the farm using meat’s DNA, 29 but even then it is difficult to determineexactly what caused the contamination in the first place, or how the pathogenevaded the myriad precautions employed at modern slaughtering facilities. This, however,does not let the farmer off the hook.When Food, Inc. told the true story of a young boy who died from infection withEscherichia coli O157:H7, the documentarians blamed the illness on the poor conditionsin which the cattle were raised and on the feeding of corn instead of grass. Thefilmmakers knew viewers would disapprove of the cattle being “ankle-deep in theirmanure, all day,” and thus the film gave the impression that cattle in feedlots are sad,and that sadness translates to humandeath. Other people havedied from E. coli infection, buttheir deaths were not sensationalizedby documentaries. Threepeople died from contaminatedorganic spinach in 2006. The bacteriumcould have been carried by the wind or water from a nearby farm to where thespinach was growing, but it could also have been the cattle manure used as fertilizer. 30There was no documentary exploiting the three deaths in an effort to “expose”the dangers of organic farming. Nor do food activists criticize those who oppose irradiation—perhapsthe most effective method of killing pathogens. Why the doublestandard? We believe much of it has to do with activist and consumer perceptions.Because livestock industries use large-scale, factory-like methods of production, andbecause the processing and distribution stage are dominated by large corporations,food activists believe these corporations are motivated largely by greed for immediateprofits, even at the expensive of consumer health.While many readers of this article will rightly balk at this caricature of meat productionindustries, it must be recognized that this is the view subtly expressed by fooddocumentaries such as Food, Inc., Fresh or Forks Over Knives. As a result, in this sensationalisticatmosphere, the livestock industry is likely to be deemed guilty in everyoutbreak of foodborne illness until proven innocent. The apparent anti-industry biasalso means that illness traceable to organic or local food producers will probably bechalked up to an innocent mistake.The cattle industry’s past mistake in feeding rendered carcasses to cattle continuesto haunt it, allowing documentaries like Fresh to use this example as proof that “factoryfarmers” will cut every corner and do anything to animals that increases short-runprofits. Many “so-called” experts once thought this feeding practice to be scientificallysound. It wasn’t. The result was mad cow disease, and subsequent scientific “experts”since then have been understandably viewed with greater skepticism. If farmers hadabstained from using a feed that they knew most people would find repugnant—andabout which there was still some scientific doubt—the reputation of livestock industriesmight not have been tarnished.The public knows little about livestock agriculture and so will infer the integrity ofan industry from a farm’s appearance, in addition to what they read on Grist or seeon Real Time with Bill Maher. If a farmer prevents a sow from turning around becauseit saves money, will the farmer also cut corners on food safety to save money? If afarmer crams a hen into a small cage with four other hens to boost production, wouldhe be unwilling to lower output by removing sick hens from the food productionchannel? If organic farmers are not held accountable for the foodborne illness theycause simply because they are trying to raise ethical food, livestock producers will beheld accountable for the illness they do and do not cause because, in the public’s perception,they seem to be acting unethically toward hens and hogs.In a telephone survey we conducted with the American Farm Bureau Federation,“One recent survey of food safety experts suggestsa belief that eating produce is riskier than eatingpork, beef, eggs, poultry or dairy.”78 percent of Americans agreed with thestatement, “Animals raised under higherstandards of care will produce safer andbetter tasting meat.” 7 There is no separationbetween perceived animal welfareand perceived food safety. While the firstpriority of producers of meat, eggs anddairy products is ensuring food is safe,in reality, safe food only has value if it isalso perceived to be safe. Let there be nodoubt, regardless of whether higher animalwelfare creates safer food, food fromhappy animals will be considered safer.In SummaryIn general, production systems thatprovide animals outdoor access have thepotential to expose animals to pathogens,viruses and other parasites. In somecases, it appears that this potential is realized.However, in other cases, perhapsdue to effects of lower stocking densitiesor better managerial competence, therisks can be alleviated or even reversed.In short, animal housing conditions arebut one factor, and a far from decidingfactor, affecting food safety.However, consumers don’t alwayssee it that way. Consumers conflateperceptions of safety with perceptionsof animal welfare. They are not necessarilyirrational in doing so, as care andmanagerial competence in one domainare likely to be correlated with meticulousnessin another. Food safety is hardto observe on the farm, especially forthe average consumer who doesn’t knowSalmonella from Campylobacter. However,through pictures and videos, consumerscan readily observe tidiness and stockingdensity, and the ability of animalsto exhibit natural behaviors. Althoughthese do not necessarily relate to foodsafety, it is not wholly unreasonable forconsumers to presume that someonewho cares about the one cares about theother. If we are really concerned aboutthe volume of pathogens people actually52 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e