Two big pieces of recent news: Reid and Pelosi will talk about health care options and maybe get something done “months” down the road. And, the folks who want a compromise with the Taliban are gaining the upper hand in the White House. So…. With those plans falling apart, Obama and his advisers may fish around for something they CAN do, and quickly. Here is an idea: PASS THE FOOD SAFETY BILL.
Is this a chance for food safety?
January 27, 2010possible serious finding on GM Corn from Monsanto
January 14, 2010A recent reinterpretation of Monsanto data on GM corn ended with this: “In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of
these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.” The entire article is at http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.pdf. Thanks to Marion Nestle’s blog for the heads-up.
Public pressure mobilized through news media is a poor guide to building a food safety system
December 18, 2009Our food safety system is not based on science or risk. Economic interests play a large role, and the news media play a critical role in setting priorities. The two work together. The gold standard for media attention is the front page of the New York Times, since so many other mass outlets—National Public Radio, the broadcasters’ news shows, and the largest cable outlets—take their cues on coverage and interpretation from it. Interests that seek to influence public policy via public opinion try to influence media coverage.
The Times’ recent coverage of the e.coli victim, and the probable cause of her illness, offer an illustration.[1] The article went into the details of how ground beef is manufactured, the sources of the beef served to the victim, the USDA inspection system, the consumer food handling instructions and whether they are effective in protecting consumers, and more. And, the story had immediate consequences. Major packers that had refused post-sale testing of their product changed their policies. Members of Congress made statements about the need for greater attention to food safety. The article made us safe, and the reporters and the Times deserve awards for saving lives. This is investigative journalism at its best. And yet, the presentation of the story was calculated to tug at Times readers’ hearts. The picture that accompanied the story showed an attractive white blonde young woman who is now confined to a wheelchair. There are many other threats to public health that do not target such attractive victims, but this is the news business.
The news media are a critical gatekeeper in the business-financed campaigns to cast doubt on science that casts doubt on their products—tobacco companies, oil companies, and the rest.[2] And, the public is susceptible to these campaigns. Belief that human-induced climate change is scientifically credible, for example, is tightly linked to partisan identity.[3]
The Obama administration’s attempts to shift the emphasis of food safety regulation toward public health concerns is one impetus of the Times focus on the topic. Yet public pressure mobilized through the media is a poor guide to building a food safety system. The news media must expend substantial resources to research questions of food safety, and they do so in the face of government and industry claims that our food is safe. Only some stories will be investigated, and only some will be told. They are unlikely to base their coverage decisions on the greatest risks to public health.
If we want science and risk abatement to be at the core of a food safety system—and we do—the media will have to become less of a driver of policy. There are ways to improve the system, the subject of subsequent entries.
[1] Michael Moss, “The Burger That Shattered Her Life,” The New York Times, October 4, 2009, p. A1. It is available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1. (The article titles are different in the print and online editions.) The article is part of a Times dedication of resources to studying food safety, a priority of the Obama administration. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/health/policy/01food.html.
[2] One of the early authors that provided details on industry-financed campaigns to manipulate science was Ross Gelbspan, The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription (NY: Basic Books, 1998). Perhaps the pioneers of this genre were Elizabeth M. Whelan, A Smoking Gun: How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder (Philadelphia: George F. Stickley Co., 1984) and, more pointedly, Philip J. Hilts, Smokescreen: The Truth Behind the Tobacco Industry Cover-Up (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1996). Two recent excellent books on the general phenomenon are Thomas O. McGarity and Wendy E. Wagner, Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), and David Michaels, Doubt is their Product (NY: Oxford, 2008). These two are the best available. More limited treatments are found in Chris Mooney, The Republican War On Science (NY: Basic Books, 2006) and Al Gore, The Assault on Reason (NY: Penguin, 2007). Gore spent more time than the others on the role of the media in spreading false information, and speculating on the ways the media are harmful to democracy. This phenomenon is everywhere. I wrote some things about it with regards to telecommunications policy, in The Making Of Telecommunications Policy, Lynne Rienner, 1999.
[3] See the October 2009 study from Pew, at http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming.
General picture of food safety
December 16, 2009One essential piece of effective food safety programs is the independence of people charged with the work of food safety.[1] The congressional committees turn out to be powerful influences on agency decisions, and committees tend to turn their attention at the behest of well-heeled contributors.
Perhaps you saw the news story and editorials about ReGen’s Menaflex surgical implant for knees, and the FDA review of the decision. The big news was not that politics influenced a decision that should have been made on scientific grounds. The news was that the FDA admitted it.[2]
Another recent story described the ground beef that almost killed a young woman and put her in a wheelchair for life. It included this paragraph:
The frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food giant Cargill, were labeled “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties.” Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.[3]
The story went on to describe widespread meat processing industry opposition to testing that would detect contamination. To be blunt, that is among the reasons why U.S. readers of this paper have about a 25% chance of contracting a food borne illness this year. France handles food very differently, and the chances there are a little over 1%. We kill many thousands of people each year, and send hundreds of thousands into hospital stays, because of the way we handle food safety.[4]
[1] Another important piece is cooperation among all parties in the food supply chain. Most countries with better public health outcomes have stronger traditions of such cooperation than does the United States.
[2] See Review Of The Regen Menaflex®*: Departures From Processes, Procedures, And Practices Leave The Basis For A Review Decision In Question, FDA, September 2009.
[3] Michael Moss, “The Burger That Shattered Her Life,”The New York Times, October 4, 2009, p. A1.
[4] The French case is instructive. The history of political battles over food safety there is told in Patrick Zylberman, “Making Food Safety an Issue: Internationalized Food Politics and French Public Health from the 1870s to the Present,” Med Hist. 2004 January 1; 48(1): 1–28. News stories and data from around the world are assembled on the bites website from Kansas State University, http://bites.ksu.edu/. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, at http://www.cspinet.org/, also assembles information about policy, and is part of the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations. They also publish Outbreak Alert, at http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/outbreak_report.html. See Caroline Smith DeWaal and Nadine Robert, Global and Local: Food Safety Around the World, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C, 2005. Each year the European Union’s European Food Safety Authority publishes its report on illnesses, the latest of which is Community Summary Report: Food-borne outbreaks in the European Union in 2007, April 2009, available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu:80/cs/BlobServer/Report/Zoon_foodborne_outbreaks_in_the_European_Union_in_2007.pdf?ssbinary=true. Britain combined food safety into one independent agency within the last decade, and public health outcomes improved rapidly.
Hello, Welcome
December 10, 2009The FDA as now constituted can not fulfill its mission. We need a single independent food safety agency. The test of this reorganization proposal should be measured in terms public health—numbers of deaths, hospitalizations, and illnesses.
The benefits of a single food agency are many. Compared to all of our wealthy industrialized competitors, we have the worst record of people getting sick from tainted food. One reason for this outcome is the mixed quality of the missions of the food safety agencies. USDA houses the Food Safety Inspection Service, which oversees the production and handling of meat. Its regulatory role is constrained by USDA acting as an advocate for agricultural interests, and food safety has lost that contest.[1] A similar dynamic is at work within FDA’s food sections. The largest demands on new FDA resources are drug and medical device issues, and HHS, FDA’s parent organization, has always had to balance public health concerns with its other policy responsibilities. Another reason for this outcome is the oversight of FDA budget and policies. The FDA budget appropriations are handled by an agricultural subcommittee, for example, instead of by one responsible for public health.
One benefit of separating food safety from FDA’s workload would be the remaining organization’s ability to focus on its responsibilities for drugs and medical devices. The two are closely tied—the professional autonomy needed to effectively regulate drugs and medical devices is needed in food regulation, as well. Experience has demonstrated this is not possible in an agency that combines the several responsibilities.[2]
[1] USDA also houses the Plant Health Inspection Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Agricultural Research Service, the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, and the Food and Nutrition Service. These organizations, the FDA, and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service all play roles in our food safety system.
[2] I thank Carl Anderson for this suggestion. His experience in the FDA and as a consultant are featured at his blog, http://carl1anderson.wordpress.com/. To disclose a personal interest, I have written responses to some of his blog entries, and I have written several short book reviews that appear on his website. A planned book will contain a thank you to Carl for his guidance and advice.
