In the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. government has been monitoring ships and inspecting fish at docks to ensure that seafood contaminated by the spill does not reach consumers. But what about the rest of the food Americans are eating this summer?
Consumers are currently reacting to the recent news of a massive egg recall by the Food and Drug Administration resulting from a Salmonella outbreak. And this comes on the heels of other food recalls this year, including 90,000 pounds of frozen chicken nuggets pulled from store shelves in July, along with additional cases still fresh in the minds of U.S. consumers - from alfalfa sprouts and peanut butter to pet food and refrigerated cookie dough.
It's not just the frequency of food contamination that is troubling; it's the difficulty the U.S. government has in identifying the culprits quickly enough to protect people from products still on supermarket shelves and in consumers' kitchens.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 76 million Americans are sickened each year by food-borne illnesses, leading to the hospitalization of 325,000 people and causing 5,000 deaths. The health-related costs of these illnesses are $152 billion, according to a recent study sponsored by the Produce Safety Project at Georgetown University.
We have a global food supply, but our methods of tracing the source and chain of custody of the food we eat is antiquated. That has to change.
Hiring more inspectors is a good start, but there will never be enough inspectors to solve the food safety challenges our country faces. Technology has advanced to the point where a smarter, safer food supply is possible. For example, we can augment our cadre of inspectors with systems that can remotely monitor food production facilities to make sure they comply with government food safety standards.
Similarly, our food inspection resources could be better allocated using predictive analytics technologies that analyze weather patterns and determine where additional food inspectors might be needed. For example, if heavy flooding is expected in a particular growing area, more inspectors could be sent in to monitor in light of the increased risk of food-borne diseases.
Inexpensive sensors and barcodes can also be put to work to make our food supply safer. Using these tags, Vietnamese seafood producers and their trading partners are now able to track their products from farms to supermarkets. Soon, a similar program will be put in place for a wide range of agricultural exports from Thailand. If other countries are using such technology to ensure the safety of their food exports, can't we do the same for food produced in the U.S?
When Congress returns from its summer recess, it can make quick work of reducing the frequency and impact food borne illnesses. Already, the House has passed legislation that would require food companies to develop safety plans to prevent food contamination, mandate more frequent inspections of food processors and importers, and give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to issue mandatory food recalls.
Now, the Senate needs to pass its version of the bill - the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Both bills would compel all parties involved in producing, processing, distributing, or selling food to maintain complete records concerning the origin and distribution history of the foods we eat.
Some food producers say this record-keeping will be expensive and burdensome, but even the smallest food producers I have encountered already maintain detailed records on their animals and crops. The trouble is, that information is either on paper or on computer systems that are difficult to search and impossible to share.
That type of system doesn't work in an age in which food recalls cost businesses tens of millions of dollars annually both from the expense of pulling products off the shelves as well as future costs resulting from reduced consumer confidence in affected brands.
About half of consumers in a recent IBM survey said they would be less willing to purchase a food product again if it was recalled due to contamination. That's a lot of business in the U.S., where the food industry represents 13 percent of GDP.
We cannot prevent all food borne illnesses, but we have to use all the tools that are available - both legislative and technological - to speed the process of uncovering their causes, reduce their effect on public health, and protect our country's food industry.
Follow Paul W. Chang on Twitter: www.twitter.com/smarterplanet
Thank you.
In short, a huge proportion of the food chain either knows they don't have adequate traceability or have just decided not to look to close and hope what they do have will be enough. It isn't..
Why the delay? Cost and concerns about technically supporting another computer system. Until recently those issues have been very valid concerns, especially for small and mid-size plants. But now with the availability of cloud (Internet) based warehouse management systems (WMS) , those concerns are no longer valid.
By leveraging the power of the Internet, cloud based , aka SaaS based, systems can be easily and cost effectively delivered to even the smallest of facilities on a monthly subscription basis.
With the new bills and ,I think, just as importantly new commercial standards like GFSI - computer based traceability is a new defacto requirement. Fortunately internet based subscription services now provide a practical way of meeting the need - and saving lives.
Factory farming needs to be eliminated yesterday, and agribusiness needs to start providing sustainably produced, humane food production or go out of business.
Otherwise, there will continue to be recalls affecting millions of pounds of food and more importantly, people will die from preventable infections. We should be willing to pay extra for sustainably, humanely produced food. ( And why is wilfuly contaminating domestic food not domestic terrorism?)
tinkering with a corrupt system is inadequate....we know how well record keeping on wall st works;
organic agriculture is the safest food source { green, sustainable, natural abundance }
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2515
not entirely sold on this bill. But, apparently, IBM is.
Which makes me less sold on this bill.
I'm remaining skeptical.
Those who would like to see real change in safety practices rather than electronic chips to track diseased food, please write your Senators at: http://www.citizens.org/?page_id=2312
Read my current blog on the topic and comment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/food-safety-do-we-need-mo_b_693979.html
And sign up for regular news commentary, insight, and timely action opportunities, at www.healthjournalistblog.com. (You can friend me on FB too.)
The thing about bills is that they’re open to interpretation, & who does the interpreting is the very real threat with these “food-safety†bills - Like Stalin said: “who casts the votes decides nothing. who counts the votes (or interprets bills) decides everythingâ€.
http://www.rmfu.org/congress-about-to-hand-over-food-safety-to-agri-business/
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/03/27-0
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=163
http://www.examiner.com/sf-in-san-francisco/hr-875-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009
If our government really wanted to make our food lives safer they would regulate the millions of pounds of dangerous chemicals dumped on our farmland annually by the agri-business industry – NOT addressed in these bills. They would regulate massive amounts of chemical additives to our foods, & other chemical contamination of our food supply. These “food safety†bills do not promote or exempt (or usually even mention) organic or small family farms that will be hit hardest by these draconian measures that agribusiness giants will be able to evade or easily comply with, re fees, licenses, record keeping & other onerous demands. We should promote sustainable agriculture, NOT more agri-business control & chemical agriculture.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/pesticides/
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/
Of course, the $152 billion spent on food-borne illnesses is a scandal, since that money could be put to much better use invading Pakistan, Yemen, Iran--or all three. Making the Middle East safe for our ally and the oil business is far more important than the quality of the food Americans eat.