Pathogens in Fresh Produce:
Is zero risk feasible?
16 Oct 2006 in Regulatory Science
Investigators have found the cattle ranch that appears to be the source
of the E. coli O157:H7 bug that infected a spinach farm a mile away But
they haven't figured out how the bug traveled the mile between the two
locations.
Industry and food safety experts alike are encouraging the public to
expect fresh produce to have zero microbial risks. Is that feasible?
MediaNews reporter Brandon
Bailey reports that the risk of E. coli O157:H7 contamination
rises when produce farms and livestock ranches are located "too close"
to each other. But the experts can't agree on how close is too
close. They continue to endorse federal Good Agricultural Practice
guidance, but they haven't made a clear showing that the GAP guidance
was violated. One reason is that the GAP guidance is vague; another is
that it's not informed by science. We have previously
noted
that Earthbound Farms, the company that processed the spinach which
proved to be contaminated, has now abandoned GAP in favor of a
different set of guidelines published by the International Commission
on Microbiological Specifications for Food.
Even taking the E. coli outbreak into account,
fresh produce is extraordinarily safe. Millions of packages of
ready-to-eat produce have been sold and consumed without incident. Yet
fresh produce cannot be without some risk precisely because it is
consumed raw. Irradiation
is a safe and effective treatment
for killing pathogens in some foods, but it cannot kill them
all.
And irradiation has its opponents, especially within the organic
foods industry and among pro-regulation consumer activists
such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest. (CSPI originally
opposed irradiation; advocated
labeling requirements that deterred consumers from buying
irradiated foods; and opposed
relaxation
of these labeling rules. More recently it has tempered its opposition
and drawn
fire from organic food advocates.)
Producers and food safety experts alike have encouraged consumers to
perceived fresh produce as risk-free, and therein lies a real problem
for both industry and consumers. The Seattle plaintiffs' lawyer who has
made a practice out of food safety litigation predicts
that Earthbound Farms and Natural Selection Foods are headed for
bankruptcy:
Bill Marler, a partner in the Seattle law firm Marler Clark, who has represented victims in high-profile foodborne illness lawsuits against Odwalla and Jack in the Box, said he doesn't think San Juan Bautista-based Natural Selection has enough insurance to cover victims' claims, which he estimates at more than $100 million.Others say corporate survival depends on accepting full financial liability even when third parties are genuinely responsible. Public statements made by Earthbound Farms do not suggest this is what they will do. Hugh Hilton, who managed the settlement of the 2003 Chi-Chi's hepatitis outbreak is quoted as recommending it highly. Hilton's experience might not be helpful to Earthbound Farms, owever. Chi-Chi's is defunct.
The result, Marler said, is that Dole -- for whom Natural Selection processed and packaged spinach and whose bagged spinach has been the only brand to which investigators have traced the E. coli strain -- will eventually have to cover some claims.
"The problem for Natural Selection," he said, "is for every dollar Dole pays, they are going to want it out of Natural Selection's hide."
To protect themselves from paying back Dole, Marler predicts that Natural Selection -- parent company of Earthbound Farm, the largest grower-shipper of organic produce in the country -- will need to file for bankruptcy.
