Meat + Poultry - May 2004 - 50

FOOD SAFET Y

attention out there. Food safety
focused on perception rather than
science could have an adverse effect
on public health."

Risk
Perceptions, opinions and values, as
well as science, are all involved in decisions about acceptability of risk,
Marion Nestle writes in her book,
Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology,
and Bioterrorism. "Safe is relative; it
is not an inherent biological characteristic of a food. A food may be safe
for some people but not others, safe
at one level of intake but not another ... Instead, we can define a safe
food as one that does not exceed an
acceptable level of risk."
Philip Handler, former president
of the National Academy of Sciences,
once said, "The estimation of a risk is
a scientific question ... The acceptability of a given level of risk, however, is a political question to be determined in the political arena."
What factors should be considered when determining the acceptability of a risk? According to Peter
Sandman, an expert on understanding risk, the definition of risk should
include both the hazard and the outrage caused by the hazard. "The risks
that kill people and the risks that
scare people are completely different," he says.

"The risks that kill people and the
risks that scare people are completely
different," says Peter Sandman, a riskcommunication consultant.
Illustrating this point: More
people are killed in an average year
by falling coconuts (150) than by
shark attacks (10). Source: March 2004,
Islands magazine.
When outrage is high, people
think the hazard is high. When outrage is low, people think the hazard
is low. Two examples of this are BSE
and bacteria. The outrage is high
with BSE, because brainwasting disease causes dread in people. However, scientific evidence shows the
hazard is quite low. "As a scientist, I
can assert that the human risk of BSE
is very low, but consumers say it's
such a horrible risk, they want to be
sure," Lineback says.
But with bacteria, outrage is

■

Regulators have to weigh self-interest.
They must recognize the biases and politics
and then put it against a standard of benchmarks
of good science.

David Schmidt, executive vice president of the International
Food Information Council

6 FSI

FOOD SYSTEMS

ınsıder

MAY 2004

low, although it kills many more people annually than does anything
associated with BSE. "With respect to
food, acceptance of risk depends far
more on perception of the number
and intensity of dread-and-outrage
factors than it does on the number of
cases of illness," Nestle writes. "From
a science-based approach to risk assessment, foodborne illness is the single most important food safety problem ... Bacteria rank low on the
dread-and-outrage scale, however,
because meat is familiar, eating it is
voluntary, food 'poisonings' are common, and most people survive them."
The changes necessary in the
food system to address foodborne illness will have widespread economic
implications.
In an article titled "The Transparent Burger," which appeared in the
March issue of Wired magazine, Don
Tapscott writes about a comprehensive tracking system for livestock. Using such a system, even the largest
meat producers could guarantee
quality and safety, writes Tapscott,
who coauthored the book The
Naked Corporation: How the Age of
Transparency Will Revolutionize
Business. "The food makers haven't
caught on, but they need to," he
writes. "Responsible government
agencies ... have neither the resources nor the ability to build this kind of
system. ... So, it's up to the producers.
As usual, their motivation won't be
found in the kindness of their hearts;
it'll come from their bottom lines.
Outbreaks hurt everyone in the business, and food companies that distinguish themselves with good practices
will make more money."

The bottom line
Some say an economically driven food
system is the problem. Others say economics drive the food-supply chain to

Meat + Poultry - May 2004

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - May 2004