HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Leave the “kill step” up to the consumer

In case you didn't have enough to worry about...

"Increasingly, Food Companies Cannot Guarantee Safety" NY Times 5/14/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/bus...

Are we doomed to eating overcooked food or playing Russian roulette with our meals? Convenience foods just got a little less convenient.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Wow, that is profound.

    I know there's been quite a push for trackability back to food origins in the U.S., like the pharmaceutical chain too.

    It's just such a different world anymore... think about how many diverse places your food comes from... potentially even in a single batch of whatever it is you're eating.

    1 Reply
    1. re: Cinnamon

      I know where 99% of my food comes from. Generally I buy direct from the farmer or rancher, when I don't I'm buying from a retailer who buys direct.

      1. re: tatamagouche

        More on the safety of our food supply...
        "E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Ground Beef Inspection"
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/hea...

        1. re: Rmis32

          I read this this morning and it was disturbing- the worst was: "Dr. Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator with the department’s [USDA] Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said." ....

          I naively thought the the companies could look after their own profits and the USDA was supposed to monitor food safety. I would be ashamed if I were him for saying that. It's unfortunate that some business owners place profits over food safety and ethics. The USDA needs to forget about these big lobbyists and focus on maintaining food safety. Period. There seem to be a lot of instances where inspectors note serious problems- and yet do nothing- merely issue a written recommendation. Why not be aggressive about food safety???

          1. re: QSheba

            Obama is moving under the radar on food safety issues. Look for lots of push back from the usual suspects. Write your congressmen and tell them you demand safe food! Otherwise, the big agriculture interests are going to win again.

            1. re: pikawicca

              Take more responsibiliity for your own food security. Seek out and buy from small producers, grow more yourself, eat more dry beans/grains, (organic).
              Do not rely on the Government to protect you from all risks. The Govenrmant cannot do that!!!!!! Government will always protect itself....first!!!!!!!

            2. re: QSheba

              Dr. Petersen made that statement because he knows the subject: testing products for pathogens does not equal safe food....

              1. re: Pollo

                How does Petersen's statement at ALL reflect that testing does not work? He clearly said he has to look out for the INDUSTRY-that public health is NOT the #1 priority. It comes down to money-hungry unethical CEOs that care more about $$$ than public safety and a government agency that is not using its full authority to protect consumers. From a scientific standpoint- testing products for pathogens does not guarantee safe food, but it does increase safety. My FIL is a microbiology professor with a PhD from Harvard- and he absolutely disagrees with your opinion Pollo. He's not in the food industry- but he does know pathogens VERY well.

                1. re: QSheba

                  We could ensure the safety of the food supply, but it would cost a whole lot of money. Would the public be willing to pay $12 per pound for hamburger they know is "safe"? I don't think so.

                  Dr. Petersen's statement was impolitic, but correct. You do have to consider the entire industry. Public health is important, but it can't be the only factor. You have to do a cost-benefit analysis.

                  (Disclaimer: I don't trust the stuff in the store, so grind my beef myself. If my time is worth anything, I'm paying a premium. But it's worth it to me.)

                  1. re: alanbarnes

                    You are assuming that testing will increase prices 600% and that the public is truly aware of food safety issues. Not everyone is as interested in food as people on Chowhound and not everyone is made aware of the horrible practices in agriculture- not just meat, but produce, dairy, etc. I believe that even most educated people aren't aware of how things are- it doesn't mean they're ignorant or dont' care, or wouldn't be wiling to pay more for safe meat- it probably just means they haven't devoted the time to learn more about it- probably because they assume things are safe- not revolting as described in the NY Times article.

                    Furthermore, I don't think Dr. Petersen's job SHOULD be to consider the industry- he should consider public health first. The agricultural lobby/ Cargill/Monsanto/etc. is certainly capable of looking after their own interests and profits. Instead the government caves to these lobbyists and simply "asks" them to put a safety plan in place, or regulate themselves, which clearly doesn't work. Safety aside- I think that what meat suppliers are allowed to get away with as far as "labeling" is deceptive. Chicken can be labled 100% natural- even if it has sodium, water and phosphates injected? Ground sirloin is not really ground sirloin but ground beef scraps at a particular fat content?The government should be looking out for the consumers- not corporations.

                    1. re: QSheba

                      $12 per pound is a made-up number. It isn't based on a detailed economic analysis. But there's no question that universal testing will cost money, and no guarantee that it will eliminate risk.

                      Plus, it will shut down the smaller operators. IMO the safest, cleanest commercial ground beef comes from reputable local butchers who grind fresh meat and sell it immediately. Mandate testing and they're out of business.

                      Government regulation by definition involves balancing interests. And before you can balance competing interests you have to consider them. Nobody said public safety isn't a priority. Nobody said it's anything other than the top priority. But it can't be the only consideration.

                      By and large we have a food supply that's safer than it ever has been. There are areas that need change, and the filthburger industry is one of them. But those changes need to come after considering all the interests and issues at hand. To do otherwise would result in chaos.

                  2. re: QSheba

                    QSheba/alanabarnes: to comment about the subject of testing you need to know the food industry. The statements/arguments you both make are due tho the lack of understanding. Quoting someone with a PhD...from Harvard or not means nothing unless they have food industry experience. Testing even 100% of product does not mean that incidents of sickness will be eliminated....end of story (ask a statistician to verify). Testing is nothing more than treating the "symptoms" and making everyone feel better (plus a good way to cover their a$$). Unless you address the cause of the problem you will continue to have these outbreaks and recalls.

                    1. re: Pollo

                      >>"to comment about the subject of testing you need to know the food industry."<<

                      To comment about the contents of a post you need to know what the post said. Try reading mine. I never said that testing would make the food supply safe, and specifically noted that universal testing carries "no guarantee that it will eliminate risk."

                      Glad you set me straight, though. I hate making stupid comments "due tho my lack of understanding."

                      1. re: alanbarnes

                        Sorry did not read the second post....in the first you dis say "Would the public be willing to pay $12 per pound for hamburger they know is "safe"? I don't think so".

                        1. re: Pollo

                          No worries.

                          I do think hamburger could be made absolutely safe, but testing alone won't come anywhere near accomplishing that.

                          The closest we can come to guaranteeing meat to be pathogen-free is to hermetically seal every cut and then irradiate it. I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it's highly effective.

                          But IMO it's better to prevent pathogens from entering the food supply than to kill them or detect them once they're there. Strictly-enforced regulation of slaughtering wouldn't eliminate risk entirely, but it would go a long way.

                          Making meat traceable would be another step in the right direction. If we can identify when and where every oyster sold in the US was harvested, why can't we do the same with beef? And we don't need to re-invent the wheel - the EU already has a program in place that tracks a head of beef from the farm where it's born to the meat case at the store.

                          But improving slaughterhouse conditions and imposing traceability requirements cost money, and Americans do love their cheap protein. I don't think an article in the NY Times is going to have much effect on the typical Wal-Mart shopper who's buying a 5-pound chub of ground "beef."

                          1. re: alanbarnes

                            alanbarnes: I agree with ALL the points you make except the irradiation. Trust me when I say that for meat/fresh cut food industry this would be "rocket science"...based on personal, hands-on experience with irradiation equipment/procedures.....too many variables, too complex and too many negatives (taste, off-flavors, etc.)....

                2. re: QSheba

                  “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said."
                  I would think that the cost of recalling thousands of lbs of tainted ground beef, dealing with lawsuits and lost sales from frightened consumers would be ample incentive for the industry to embrace testing, but apparently I'm wrong

                  1. re: Rmis32

                    Apparently the cost of recalls is still less than what it would cost to implement testing. Certainly the the fear of gov't fines for failing inspections/closing down factories isn't sufficient to stop these companies from operating in unsanitary/unsafe conditions. Let's increase fines to pay for our deficit!

                3. re: Rmis32

                  One development on this front, re Congress:
                  http://delauro.house.gov/release.cfm?...

                  Also, here is some relatively recent testimony from Petersen and others on food safety:
                  http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&amp;_E...

                  An excerpt of one of the above testimonies may shed some light on why everything isn't all perfect:

                  "While the meat and poultry acts have been amended many times, they do not allow us to address the significant risks facing our food supply as effectively and efficiently as possible. These laws should be modernized to allow for improved flexibility and coordination and to enable USDA to move quickly to address the emerging threats to the food supply." - Statement of Jerold R. Mande, Deputy Under Secretary before the House Committee on Agriculture, in July.

                  (I am not saying things would necessarily be perfect after any such law updates.)

              2. Widespread use of radiation on these staple prepared food products would be a great step in solving this problem. It can be applied after the product is packaged which would help in preventing post processing contamination. It is a safe and proven process.

                7 Replies
                1. re: NVJims

                  NVJim: to make a statement like that you must have never seen a food plant and/or irradiation facility? All you need to minimize these problems is for people to develope common sense....

                  1. re: Pollo

                    If the origin of the food is both unknown and unknowable, and if any of the facilities involved in the food's production are unsanitary and/or inadequately monitored, all the "common sense" in the world will do you no good.

                    Irradiation is a method strongly urged by the WHO, whose staff presumably have seen more than a few food plants and radiation facilities. Contaminated food is not simply a threat to us supermarket shoppers, but to an entire world full of people who must eat to live, and WHO and all the rest of us have a stake in stamping out as much food-borne disease as possible. Irradiation is a powerful and relatively inexpensive tool in that battle.

                    More selfishly, and speaking as a serious Chowhound here, I wish I could buy irradiated fresh eggs, and remove that last bit of Russian-roulettishness out of making such things as mayonnaise and Caesar dressing...

                      1. re: Will Owen

                        Will: we are not talking here about saving the world's food supply....just making sure that pot pies and burgers are properly cooked. For that you do not need irradiation. WHO is staffed by "ivory towers" crowd who has no clue what goes on in the "real world". Irradiation is impractical for all but a select few food applications (i.e. spices)....way too expensive and way to complex for food industry....and I mean for US companies....which means suggesting use by 3rd world countries is a bit of a joke.....

                        1. re: Pollo

                          The kind of stuff we're talking about - at least some of us - can't be avoided by simply cooking the food right. Irradiation is not rocket science; it's been around since I was a kid, and that's been 60 years at least. I remember reading in grade school about how we would soon be buying steaks and fish off open shelves instead of out of cold boxes, and even then it was an inexpensive and easy process. Near as I can tell the only reason that didn't happen was the same kind of ignorance that killed a national health plan around the same time, in this case the notion that we'd all be forced to eat radioactive, glow-in-the-dark food. Oooo, scary!

                    1. re: NVJims

                      Food producers want irradiation so that they can sell you ground beef full of irradiated cow poop. Once irradiation is generally accepted they'll pull back on their efforts to keep clean because 1) it'll save them money and 2) irradiation will cover many sins.

                      I want poop free meat, not irradiated poop.

                      1. re: JC65

                        I'm with you on the poopless meat yeccch!

                    2. Why is this article surprising ... to anyone??

                      1 Reply
                      1. re: ipsedixit

                        I got over it quick but I have to admit I was surprised by the unashamed albeit somewhat apologetic (ogt) refusal to test (and absence of any requirement that they do so) by batch as it comes from processors because the potential chain of contamination would then be TOO transparent. W T living F ? Further words fail me.

                      2. The original comment has been removed