Reinforcing the Links in the Food Safety Chain 29826

 Reinforcing the Links
in the Food Safety Chain
August 1996 -- Food Safety

By: Scott Hegenbart
Senior Editor

  When the safety of food is compromised, the effects -- in addition to the potential loss of human life -- can be staggering. In 1992 alone, the medical costs and productivity losses due to foodborne pathogens were estimated to be somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion ("Food Safety Issues: Modernizing Meat Inspection," Agricultural Outlook, 197, 1993).  In 1989, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), Ames, IA, created a task force to determine the state of knowledge about U.S. foodborne disease risks. The task force's findings were released in a 1994 report entitled, "Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences."  Among the report findings are that the "Application of hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) systems can reduce the likelihood of foodborne illness." The report further states that "pathogens and their toxins can enter the food chain at any point from the farm to the kitchen."  By designing hurdles along the entire length of this chain, the reduction of incidence and prevention of contamination, etc. would contribute to the overall safety.  This series of articles has been developed to demonstrate how food safety is affected at various points along the entire food production chain and to offer examples of how it is/might be controlled. Although proper testing and monitoring certainly would be an important part of such a comprehensive HACCP plan, the emphasis has been given to identifying ways to reduce the incidence of potential hazards.  All the efforts to improve food safety early in the food chain can be undone at the last link. The food handlers that make up this link, whether they are consumers or foodservice workers, have a greater impact on food safety than many might imagine. According to the Ames, IA-based Council for Agricultural Science and Technology's (CAST) report, "Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences," less than 10% of foodborne illness is due to errors in the food chain up to this final link. Twenty percent may be attributed to mishandling in the home, while the rest (70%) is attributed to mishandling in foodservice operations.  In fact, many representatives in the food industry take issue with mandatory HACCP regulations because the incidence of problems attributed to the food industry is so much lower than that attributed to food handling.  The burden should not be put exclusively on the supplier," says Manfred Kroger, Ph.D., professor of food science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. "A consumer can undo all the good things by putting a food product on a bad cutting board."  Therefore, a true HACCP system for food safety must consider the final food handler as a control point.Consumer role increases  According to many industry sources, the consumer's role in food safety has become more critical because the general population has become less familiar with proper handling procedures. The CAST report adds that "food-handling and -preparation practices in the United States have been changing, primarily toward convenience and therefore advance preparation. And the variety of foods available, including imported foods, has grown. Thus, the chances of contamination and abuse of foods have increased because 1) handling has increased, 2) time for abuse and possible growth of pathogens in food has been extended, and 3) expanded variety can lead to confusion about safe and appropriate handling practices.  Many food safety experts tout the need to educate consumers in safe food handling techniques in order to improve their performance in the food safety chain. An obvious example of this education can be found in the safe handling labels that now appear on fresh meat and poultry. These contain readily available information about storing and thawing meat, avoiding cross-contamination, cooking, and properly refrigerating leftovers. Other sources of food safety education include public service announcements, freely distributed government publications, hotlines, and web sites on the Internet. Just because the information is out there, though, is no guarantee that consumers will heed it.  "The HACCP approach can be applied to foods during production and harvest, during distribution and holding, during processing, during display at retail establishments, and during preparation and awaiting use in foodservice establishments," says the CAST report. "It, however, is not ideal for addressing problems occurring in home food handling and preparation."  The report also points out that it is important for consumers to understand that no food safety system will be perfect.  "The public should be educated to understand that our goal must be risk minimization and that zero risk is not attainable relative to food safety," says the report. "We recommend that consumers be allowed choices in the types of food available to them, yet be made aware of their relative risk status, including their risks of acute as well as chronic illnesses."Educational challenges  Just as important as the information given to consumers is the information that shouldn't be given to them -- namely, unsound pseudo-science that is meant to frighten consumers. Michael Doyle, Ph.D., professor and department head, department of food science and technology, center for food safety and quality enhancement, University of Georgia, Griffin, offers an example of such an incident that happened in the summer of 1995.  It started when a consumer in Cincinnati thought the iced tea he ordered in a restaurant tasted like sewage. He then took it to a local television station which sent the tea out for a test of fecal coliforms. When the results came back positive, they did a survey of iced tea from several area restaurants and found the same thing. Rather than investigate the cause further, the station aired an expose of the dangers of fecal bacteria in tea.  What the consumer and the television station staff didn't realize, however, is that some microorganisms are commonly found on vegetables, etc. -- including tea -- that may never have come into contact with fecal matter. The bacteria that may test positive on a general fecal coliform test can come from sources other than fecal matter. Even the FDA said that fecal coliform testing was not effective in this case and that a specific test of E. coli was necessary to determine fecal contamination.  Unfortunately, many consumers in Cincinnati will not drink iced tea now, and several restaurants have taken it off their menus. When presented with scientific facts such as those offered by the FDA, the television station -- rather than letting this information stand on its own merit -- treated it as "debate."  "Tea is perfectly healthy," says Doyle. "People do not get sick and die from it, but people still will not drink it because of this situation."  It is obvious that educating consumers properly will require encouraging the media to provide useful, science-based information. In addition to food handling, such information should familiarize consumers with newer tools that can improve safety. It has been suggested, for example, that color-changing labels be applied to foods so temperature abuse could be more readily identified. Consumers not only would have to learn how to interpret the indicator labels, but they must understand the importance of abuse indication.  Possibly one of the greatest challenges in consumer education has been the subject of irradiation. Here is a technology that can reduce the incidence of bacteria, insects and parasites, yet it languishes largely because of unfounded consumer fears. This impedes progress toward improving food safety.  Irradiation is just another tool just like pasteurization," says Kroger. "Whenever there is a new technology, it will have opponents and will require educating consumers about its benefits."  What is seen as a final consumer hurdle toward improving food safety is that some measures may add cost to the food. According to the CAST report, however, consumers are willing to pay more for safer food. They're even willing to sacrifice a little convenience.  In a survey of Kansas consumers, Kramer and Penner (1986) found consumers willing to pay 1 to 3 cents per pound more for beef free of unwanted residues," says the CAST report. "Smallwood (1989) reported a nationwide survey in which over one-half of respondents were willing to pay about 17 cents more per pound for 'disease-free' chicken. (Nearly one of three respondents expressed a willingness to spend up to 20 additional minutes in preparation and cleanup to reduce the risk of foodborne illness)."The institutional challenge  Fifty percent of the consumer food dollar will soon be spent away from home at carryouts, delis, fast food restaurants, etc.," says Kroger. "It's 30% now."  Foodservice operations already account for most food safety outbreaks. The incidence of hepatitis A and Norwalk virus in food are almost exclusively caused by contamination through mishandling in foodservice establishments. Increased use of foodservice will heighten the need to educate food handlers on safe food handling methods.  According to the CAST report, "Food establishment managers have the primary responsibility for preventing conditions that can lead to outbreaks of foodborne disease. They must be aware of the kinds of operations that can lead to outbreaks and of their relative risks, and insist that appropriate preventive measures be practiced and monitored."  Although the report emphasizes the importance of training these concepts, it recognizes the difficulty of the task because personnel turnover tends to be high in foodservice and the educational level, skill and compensation typically are low. "The continued implication of foodservice workers in transmission of hepatitis illustrates both the importance and difficulty of successful training," says the report.  The final link in the food safety chain is definitely the weakest, and strengthening it appears to offer the greatest challenge. Still, few would want to abandon efforts at improvement. While these efforts continue, advancements earlier in the chain also will help reduce the incidence of pathogens by the time foods reach the last link.Back to top<