Natali, I guess you and I just read that story very differently.
To me, it's saying this: There's a health problem involving leafy vegetables. Right now, there are no government regulations specifically addressing it, and consumer groups are concerned. The government has called for government monitoring of production sites and has issued guidelines for producers. Consumer groups support the on-site monitoring plan because they feel producers won't follow the guidelines. Industry representatives say the on-site monitoring would be impractical, and better education of producers will solve the problem.
What's wrong with that? That just seems like classic consumer information story: here's the problem, here are the various responses proposed by government officials, consumer groups and industry representatives. If journalists never ran stories about problems in food production practices, our food would be a lot riskier than it is; think of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," which led to major reforms in the meat-packing industry.
Natali, the press seems to be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here. If there is a weakness in food safety regulations and the press
didn't cover it, it would be criticized for ignoring a public health issue. But now the press
is covering it, and being accused of being alarmist. Personally, I'm generally in favor of more information, not less.
I do agree that the mention of terrorism doesn't belong in the story. The story says it's not a factor in this case, so why bring it up at all? If the Health and Human Services secretary is that worried that the food supply is vulnerable to terrorist attack, it's a legitimate story, but it's a different story.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Leafy vegetables are the second leading source of E. coli infections in the United States,
A health problem has been associated with leafy vegetables
but the government relies primarily on voluntary safety steps by farmers and packagers to prevent outbreaks.
Right now, the problem is being dealt with through voluntary steps by producers.
Some consumer groups believe the government should do more to regulate farming and packaging, including the quality of water used for irrigation, the application of manure and sanitary facilities used by workers
"The safeguards are not in place to protect fruits and vegetables in the same way that they are for beef and poultry," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food-safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
An official in a prominent consumer food-safety group thinks produce should be more tightly regulated, as meat is.
Foodborne illnesses in the United States cost about $7 billion annually, including medical expenses and productivity losses from missed work, according to estimates from the federal government.
Here is what the problem is currently costing.
The U.S. food supply is governed by a complex system administered by 15 agencies. Lawmakers in past years have introduced legislation to make one agency responsible for food safety.
One reason for the problem may be the complicated structure of the food-safety system. Some lawmakers think putting one agency in charge would help.
Federal officials have also raised concerns that the food supply is vulnerable to contamination by terrorists. Just before leaving office in December 2004, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said he worries "every single night" about a possible terror attack on the food supply.
"For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do," Thompson said.
FDA officials do not suspect terrorism in the latest outbreak.
As I said, this doesn't belong in this story.
In recent years, the FDA has acknowledged problems involving the safety of produce, particularly with lettuce and spinach.
"In light of continuing outbreaks, it is clear more needs to be done," said Robert Brackett, director of the agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Sciences.
Brackett's comments were contained in a letter sent in November to California firms that grow, pack and ship lettuce. He noted that 19 known outbreaks of E. coli have come from fresh-cut lettuce or spinach since 1995.
The government has recognized the problem. An FDA official has contacted producers.
In March, the agency issued draft guidance for the safe production of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. Last month, the agency issued what it called the Lettuce Safety Initiative. It calls for visits to farms and packing operations so staff can monitor potential trouble spots and offer recommendations on reducing food contamination.
The government has recommended safer production methods and on-site monitoring in hopes of reducing contamination.
But warning letters and guidance are not enough, the consumer groups say. They contend many producers never hear of the recommendations, and that means the level of food safety remains hazardous and deadly.
Consumer groups don't believe producers will follow the recommendations. They want tighter controls.
Jim Gorny, senior vice president of food safety and technology for the United Fresh Produce Association, said testing at produce plants would be burdensome and ineffective.
The producers say the on-site monitoring would be impractical.
Gorny said the produce industry met with Brackett after getting the FDA's letter. The producers came up with a four-part plan that revolves around outreach programs to farmers and packagers so that they know the best practices to avoid contamination. They also want more federal funding for research programs.
Instead, they propose teaching farmers and packagers better safety practices.
