Clearer Standards Needed For Food Safety Protections
Published: Nov. 18, 2002
November 18, 2002
URBANA-A clear economic rationale exists for governmental involvement in food safety, said a University of Illinois Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics professor, but both consumers and industry would be better served by standards that are well understood.
"Because of the quality of U.S. food production and the governmental standards that are in place, most food safety hazards today are fairly modest in scope and severity," said Laurian J. Unnevehr.
However, she adds, a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision upholding a Texas court's decision blocking the USDA from closing a beef processing plant that failed a series of tests for control of salmonella raises questions about standards.
Unnevehr is the author of "Food Safety: Setting and Enforcing Standards" in the latest edition of the Illinois Rural Policy Digest which can be accessed on-line at: http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/policy/digest/digest.html .
Today, food safety is receiving a great deal of attention from the public for several reasons, she noted.
"Science can trace many food-borne illnesses to specific pathogens found in food. As consumers live longer and become more affluent, they demand higher levels of quality and safety," she explained. "Changes in production practices and new sources of food, such as imports, introduce new risks into the food system. And more foods are purchased away from home or in prepared form, giving consumers less control."
The food industry has responded to this demand with many innovations to improve safety. But simply letting the market determine food safety might not protect all consumers, especially those susceptible to foodborne illness, such as the elderly and small children. "Unregulated economic markets could fail to provide a satisfactory level of safety from the consumer's standpoint," she said.
Twelve different government agencies have authority over different aspects of food safety in the United States, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA carrying the brunt of the burden. Primary responsibility for food safety in meat and poultry rests with the USDA; the FDA has primary responsibility for all other foods.
A risk assessment approach to the design of food safety regulation--looking at where hazards enter food during production and where it is easiest to control them--has been advocated by the National Academy of Sciences and used by USDA and FDA in their most recent regulations. Another new development is the mandated use of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems of safety management.
"HAACP requires that processors identify critical control points and develop procedures for monitoring controls and addressing any failures that occur," Unnevehr said. "This reflects a growing recognition that it is important to prevent and control hazards before they reach the consumer."
Since the early years of the 20th Century, USDA has relied on meat carcass inspection at the point of slaughter. While this system removed diseased animals from the food supply and ensured sanitation procedures, it was not designed to address microbial pathogens, such as E. coli and salmonella.
"Both of these can live in the gastrointestinal track of animals without harming them, and may enter meat during slaughter and processing," she said.
It was an attempt to address this gap that led to the Texas suit against USDA. The standards adopted permitted no more than 7.5 percent of a plant's ground beef to contain salmonella and more than 90 percent of federally inspected plants met that standard. However, after the Texas plant in question failed salmonella tests three times over eight months, USDA moved to shut it down.
"The Texas beef plant appealed, contending that because salmonella is not an adulterant and because it is destroyed during normal cooking, its presence is not a public safety issue," said Unnevehr. "While the beef processor in question eventually went out of business, its court victory left confusion about the role of standards in the future. Now, salmonella tests must be used in conjunction with other information to shut down a plant, and can no longer be the sole basis for that decision.
"This leaves several issues in how food safety is regulated not fully resolved. These include USDA's legal authority under current meat inspection laws as well as the scientific validity of sampling and testing procedures."
One question that might be asked is if it makes economic sense to set a microbial pathogen standard for meat and poultry plants, she added.
While the appeals court decision said that historically responsibility for reducing food pathogens rested with the final food preparer, Unnevehr believes that changing habits and products have complicated that assumption.
"Food preparation methods have changed with the advent of more fresh foods and use of new technologies such as microwave ovens, and food preparation has increasingly moved outside the home," she said. "Clearly, consumer protection in this changing food system means shifting more responsibility to the food industry for food safety."
She noted that benefits from reducing food borne illnesses are potentially very large, ranging from $2 billion to $172 billion, reflecting the varying estimates of the extent of food borne illness and different methods for valuing life and health.
The question becomes, in her view, developing standards that are most effective and least burdensome to industry for achieving improved food safety. Standards can be based on outcomes, such as the 7.5 percent salmonella standard, or on processes used in production, such as requiring specific sanitation procedures.
"In practice, it is difficult and expensive to test food products, so food safety standards are often a mix of product outcome and process standards," she said. "It would enhance the long run efficiency of the meat industry if scientists can agree on appropriate performance standards for microbial pathogens in meat. This would encourage firms to find ways to reduce the incidence of these pathogens in the food supply.
"All factors point to the desirability of setting clear standards for microbial pathogens. Both consumers and ultimately industry would be better served by standards that are well understood. This may require changes in the meat and poultry inspection laws, as well as further research to determine the best sampling and testing methods."
-30-