Taking responsibility for food safety

30.oct.06
The Windsor Star

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, an assistant professor (marketing) in the University of Regina's Faculty of Business Administration, writes in this op-ed that Canadian consumers have good reason to question the safety of their fruits and vegetables, and many wonder why food safety alerts issued by the CFIA seem more frequent.
Many decades ago, food supply depended on regional production and was largely decentralized, which tended to minimize and contain food-based epidemics. Today, food production is more centralized and this has created favourable conditions for dissemination of bacteria and viruses. To cope with these risks, the food industry has implemented efficient certification programs like HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point). HACCP requires food companies to analyze production processes intelligently, anticipate safety hazards at appropriate critical points, and establish effective prevention controls and standards. The concepts underlying HACCP are simple and can be highly effective when used correctly.
Under the watchful eye of programs such as HACCP, organizations involved in every stage of food distribution must take responsibility for food safety. But this sharing of responsibility also allows for the sharing of blame. Producers blame manufacturers, manufacturers blame distributors, and so forth. But since it is well-known that the mishandling of food in consumers' kitchens is a leading cause of these occurrences (where's te proof? -- dp), blame tends to fall on the consumer. For instance, in the following hours after two consumers were hospitalized due to botulism, American manufacturers overtly blamed consumers who drank the contaminated carrot juice. This was not the finest strategic response to a food safety situation.
Charlebois says that risk communication and food safety are closely connected. For many consumers, decision making at the food counter is not based on facts. It is a story that begins and ends with their empathy for and trust in the producers, the authorities, and the manufacturers within the food industry. And this trust is again related to the different organizations' willingness and ability to practice risk communication.
Within the scientific framework of risk analysis, risk communication has in recent years been acknowledged as playing an important, and often decisive, part in the outcome or effect of risk assessment and risk management on public opinion and behaviour. For example, the CFIA astutely used risk communication in the 2003 BSE outbreak, and by doing so achieved beneficial long-term results (some better risk management may have led to fewer animals with BSE -- dp). The food industry needs to learn from its mistakes to establish a better relationship with consumers.
With every food safety predicament, the food industry needs to understand its audience, share responsibility, and differentiate between science and value judgements for consumers. This is not an effortless task for food industry pundits since differences in perceptions, differences in receptivity, consumer misunderstanding about the scientific process, and the role of the media are hindrances to the intricate process of risk communication (huh? -- dp).
We are living in the age of risks. Through large scale bulletins in the media, we have learned about food scandals that threaten both our health and our environment. Consumers are left confused about who they should trust, and whether industrialized production of produce can be regarded as ethically defensible in our day and age. The likelihood of becoming sick from the next meal has probably never been less than it is today. Nonetheless, the odds are one in four that any given consumer will get sick this year from contaminated foods. At the same time, consumers know less than ever about the long-term consequences of today's food production. We are gradually moving from an industrialized society to a society where perceptions are king. Food manufacturers, processors, distributors, and retailers alike need to adapt.
Consumers need to understand that while producing safe food is not an impossible task, complex food distribution systems and food imports that may not be HACCP certified make production more multifarious. A robust risk communication strategy can lead to better public education about food safety.
Ultimately, the food industry can no longer rely on the CFIA to communicate inherent risks that exist in food consumption. When it comes to food safety, consumers currently bear all the health risks. The situation is different from in the past, when regulatory authorities took care of the risks and kept dangerous foods out of the country. More and more, consumers are supplied with added value product, which can potentially kill.