Food Safety Magazine, February/March 2013

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
consume, then we must also be aware oftheir perceptions—which drive what theyput in their mouths.•F. Bailey Norwood, Ph.D., is anassociate professor in the Departmentof Agricultural Economics atOklahoma State University, wherehe researches farm animal welfareissues, survey methods andteaching effectiveness.Jayson L. Lusk, Ph.D., currentlyserves as professor and WillardSparks Endowed Chair in the Departmentof Agricultural Economicsat Oklahoma State University. Afterearning a B.S. in food technologyfrom Texas Tech University in 1997, he received a Ph.D.in agricultural economics from Kansas State Universityin 2000.References1. Shamberg, S.S. and G. Jacobs [producers].Soderbergh, S. [director]. Burns, S.Z. [writer]2011. Contagion [film]. Warner Brothers Pictures[distributor].2. Hoffman, S. 2009. Knowing which foods aremaking us sick. Choices 2nd Quarter. 24(2).3. Batz, M.B., S. Hoffmann and J.G. Morris Jr.2012. Ranking the disease burden of 14 pathogensin food sources in the United States usingattribution data from outbreak investigations andexpert elicitation. J Food Prot 75(7):1278–1291.4. Jacobson, M.F. and Staff of the Center forScience in the Public Interest (CSPI). 2006. Sixarguments for a greener diet. Center for Sciencein the Public Interest.5. Matthews, K.R. 2009. The produce contaminationproblem: Causes and solutions, eds. G.M.Sapers, E.B. Solomon and K.R. Matthews. Burlington,MA: Elsevier Inc.6. We contacted the CSPI to discuss this calculationand believe their assumption of one-third isreasonable.7. Norwood, F.B. and J.L. Lusk. 2011. Compassion,by the Pound. New York: Oxford Press.8. Expenditures on beef, pork, poultry and othermeats (as a single group) are $842 per year. Thenumbers for dairy, fruits and vegetables, eggs,and fish and seafood are $481, $842, $60 and$120, respectively. Numbers for beef, pork andpoultry are $300, $180 and $180, respectively.These numbers are taken from www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm#publications.9. Prickett, R.W., F.B. Norwood and J.L. Lusk.2010. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of U.S. households.Animal Welfare 19:335–347.10. Gallaway, T.R., J.L. Morrow, T.S. Edrington, K.J. Genovese, S. Dowd, J. Carroll, J.W. Dailey, R.B.Harvey, T.L. Poole, R.C. Anderson and D.J. Nisbet. 2006. Social stress increases fecal shedding ofSalmonella Typhimurium by early weaned piglets. Current Issues Intest Microbiol 7:65–72.11. Brown-Brandl, T.M., E.D. Berry, J.E. Wells, T.M. Arthur and J.A. Nienaber. 2009. Impacts of individualanimal response to heat and handling stresses on Escherichia coli and E. coli O157:H7 fecal sheddingby feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6(7):855–864.12. Rostagno, M. 2009. Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Pathog Dis6(7):767–776.13. De Mol, R.M., W.G.P. Schouten, E. Evers, H. Drost, H.W.J. Houwers and A.C. Smits. 2006. A computermodel for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens. Netherlands J Ag Sci54:157–168.14. Bracke, M.B.M., B.M. Spruijt, J.H.M. Metz and W.G.P. Schouten. 2002. Decision supportsystem for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows: A model structure and weighting procedure.J Animal Sci 80:1819–1834.15. Welshans, K. 2011. Modern hog production results in safer pork. Feedstuffs 14.16. Davies, P.R. 2011. Intensive swine production and pork safety. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8(2),DOI:10.1089/fpd.2010.0717.17. Davis et al. 1928. Livestock enterprises. Chicago: J.B. Lippincott Company, pp. 284 and 391.18. Kinde, H., D.H. Read, R.P. Chin, A.A. Bickford, R.L. Walker, A. Ardans, R.E. Breitmeyer, D. Willoughby,H.E. Little, D. Kerr and I.A. Gardner. 1996. Sewage effluent: Likely source of Salmonella enteritidis,phage type 4 infection in a commercial chicken layer flock in southern California: Bacteriologic andepidemiologic findings. Avian Dis 40(3):665–671.19. It should be noted these outdoor systems also did not receive regular supplements of antibioticsat the subtherapeutic level. Most outdoor production systems do not administer growth hormonesor antibiotics to healthy hogs, as being able to label pork “antibiotic-free” and “hormone-free” allowsretailers to charge higher premiums.20. Gebreyes, W.A., P.B. Bahnson, J.A. Funk, J. McKean and P. Patchanee. 2008. Seroprevalence ofTrichinella, Toxoplasma and Salmonella in antimicrobial-free and conventional swine production systems.Foodborne Pathog Dis 5(2):199–203, DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2007.0071.21. Callaway, T.R., J.L. Morrow, A.K. Johnson, J.W. Dailey, F.M. Wallace, E.A. Wagstrom, J.J. Mcglone,A.R. Lewis, S.E. Dowd, T.L. Poole, T.S. Edrington, R.C. Anderson, K.J. Genovese, J.A. Byrd, R.B. Harveyand D.J. Nisbet. 2005. Environmental prevalence and persistence of Salmonella spp. in outdoor swinewallows. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2(3):264–273.22. Hanning, I.B., J.D. Nutt and S.C. Ricke. 2009. Salmonellosis outbreaks in the United States due tofresh produce: Sources and potential intervention measures. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6(6), DOI:10.1089/fpd.2008.0232.23. Melendez, S.N., I. Hanning, J. Han, R. Nayak, A.R. Clement, A. Wooming, P. Hererra, F.T. Jones, S.L.Foley and S.C. Ricke. 2010. Salmonella enterica isolates from pasture-raised poultry exhibit antimicrobialresistance from class I integrons. J Appl Microbiol, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04825.x.24. Bailey, J.S. and D.E. Cosby. 2005. Salmonella prevalence in free-range and certified organic chickens.J Food Prot 68(11):2451–2453.25. Van Loo, E.J., W. Alali and S.C. Ricke. 2012. Food safety and organic meats. Ann Rev Food SciTechnol 3:203–225.26. Voogd, E. 2009. Does animal welfare affect food safety? Food Safety Magazine February/March42–53.27. This information is based on an e-mail exchange with Frank Aarestrup, whom we consider the mostinformed European on antibiotic use in agriculture.28. Coclanis, P.A. 2011. Food is much safer than you think. The Wall Street Journal. June 14, A13.29. Felberbaum, M. 2011. New frontier in food safety: meat traceable by DNA. The Commercial AppealMay 31.30. Chew, W.-P. 2008. Correlation of in-field survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 with rainfall, relativehumidity and soil moisture. Master’s thesis. Department of Food Science. Oklahoma State University.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 53
Page 4 and 5: February/March 2013Vol. 19, No. 1FE
Page 6: Editor’s LetterWe at Food Safety
Page 10 and 11: USDA Seeks Comments on ProposedFroz
Page 12: TestingBy Katerina Mastovska, Ph.D.
Page 15 and 16: Testingheat treatment, the toxins c
Page 17 and 18: staying connectedto your data hasne
Page 19 and 20: PROCESS CONTROL1. Scope2. Normative
Page 21 and 22: SANITATIONapproach, 1, 2 while effe
Page 23 and 24: SANITATIONis a matter of legal liab
Page 25 and 26: Accreditationment undertaken by the
Page 27 and 28: AccreditationFood Microbiological L
Page 29 and 30: MANAGEMENTcertain spices. As no acc
Page 31 and 32: MANAGEMENTtook so long to be resolv
Page 33 and 34: Choose ConfidenceChoose Confidence
Page 35 and 36: Special advertising supplement pres
Page 37 and 38: AccuracyQualitySafetyHACCP Monitori
Page 39 and 40: THE SANITARY CHOICEFOR FOOD SAFETYT
Page 41 and 42: Specialists in Food & BeverageSampl
Page 44 and 45: PACKAGING(continued from page 34)fo
Page 46 and 47: Animal Welfareand Food SafetyBy F.
Page 48 and 49: Animals versus PlantsBefore discuss
Page 50 and 51: Percent (between 0 to 1) / $100 spe
Page 54 and 55: INGREDIENTSBy Rupa Das, M.Sc.Qualit
Page 56 and 57: SEAFOODBy Gary P. Richards, Ph.D.,
Page 58 and 59: SEAFOODfoods is essential to reduci
Page 60 and 61: SEAFOOD(infectious and noninfectiou
Page 62 and 63: Product ShowcaseShelf-Life Extender
Page 64 and 65: Coupler BrakeForce Control Industri
Page 66 and 67: Advertisers IndexAdvanced Instrumen
Page 68 and 69: Allergens LabeledSanitation Verifie
Page 70 and 71: Solutions for Today,Planning for To
Page 72 and 73: keynote theatre special events2013
Page 74 and 75: WORKSHOPS • TUESDAY, APRIL 30WORK
Page 76 and 77: Sessions • WednESDAY, May 1SESSIO
Page 78 and 79: Sessions • WednESDAY, May 1SESSIO
Page 80 and 81: Sessions • ThurSDAY, May 2SESSION
Page 82 and 83: Exhibit hall — where solutions ar
Page 84: 155 N. Pfingsten Rd., Suite 205Deer

Food Safety Magazine, February/March 2013

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?