|
LONE STAR PERSPECTIVE “ We need to be careful to balance science and risk with public perception " Food safety issues have been getting their share of attention in the news lately. We experienced more botulism outbreaks than usual last summer, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 was a common issue that certainly grabbed the newspaper headlines. Concerns regarding the safety of food imports from China have even been voiced by hopeful candidates in the US presidential election primaries. Everybody seems to be talking about food safety, but not everyone is on the same page. Take raw milk, for example. That would seem to be a simple, straightforward food safety topic. Raw milk can contain enteric pathogens that cause foodborne illness, so it should be pasteurized to assure safety. Apparently, however, that is not apparent to all, evidenced by the following excerpts from statements I have seen recently in newspapers.
If you are anything like me, you now have an overwhelming inclination to correct the authors of the statements above and set the record straight—using science, of course. Obviously, their risk assessment wiring is out of whack and just needs a little dose of logic and science to get straightened out, right? All of us have dabbled in risk assessment and management to some extent in our day to day existence, even if unknowingly. From a professional perspective, we know that hazards are to be addressed based upon severity and likelihood of occurrence. However, in order for this to be effective, our risk management must be driven by rock-solid science. If our severity and occurrence data is flawed or incomplete, the inaccuracy of our risk management attempts will be magnified to an even greater level. Reliance on science makes perfect sense to us; however, it is imperative that the public, or the consumer, also has confidence in the system. Historically, the consuming public has demonstrated a love-hate relationship with science. It should be stated up front that a microbiologist presenting history is fraught with potential problems, yet history plays an operative role in the way we evaluate food safety today, so bear with me, as I think this has an impact. From around 30 to 1650 AD, the world believed strongly in the power of the supernatural on human life in terms of safety and security. From 1650–1780, during the Enlightenment, understanding of science began to displace belief in the supernatural, and people even started to profess a distaste for that which could not be explained by science. I believe that thought process peaked during the Space Age from 1957–1986. Many of us grew up during this time period and we all remember how science was held in great reverence. Astronauts were some of my greatest heroes—I even had a Mercury Space Program lunch box in first grade. Science could do no wrong. In the present age, however, science has developed a credibility problem. The public has been hit pretty hard with what the news media portrays as science gone bad—pesticides, shuttle disasters, Mad Cow Disease, and genetically modified organisms. There is currently a trend against science in some circles. The public has experienced a fall-back to comfortable beliefs not necessarily supported by science. Remember the statements supporting the consumption of raw milk earlier? This developing situation creates a great challenge for us as we attempt to convince consumers that science and risk-based systems are the answer to our problems. For instance, US meat and poultry processing has been historically subject to continuous regulatory inspection, and few would deny that the continuous inspection system is very inefficient and unfocused. Many would say that inspection policy is not in agreement with science and, in fact, is likely a great waste of resources. However, the consuming public has confidence in this system, warranted or not, because it has a comfortable history. On the other hand, risk-based inspection makes more sense, but change is discomforting. Risk analysis focuses our efforts on significant hazards, so resources are not wasted. Risk-based systems are based on science, and we are all convinced of the validity of making decisions based on science, yet the consumer may not be comfortable with this type of system due to a lack of history. In these “modern” times, scientific reasoning may not bolster consumer confidence as it did when many of us were growing up. As we approach the imple-mentation of progressive, scienti-fically supported steps for consumer protection, we need to be careful to balance science and risk with public perception. It is difficult to know how to proceed in such transitional times, but here are a few things that I believe are guaranteed not to work… 1. Tell the consumer that science is the only answer. 2. Promote the myth that we can achieve a “zero risk” food supply. 3. Just throw up our hands and admit that the public is incapable of understanding. 4. Throw facts and data at the consumer until they are forced into an unavoidable logical and compliant opinion. We, as proponents of science, have to present a focused position. It has to be firmly based in science, but it has to be sensitive to public perception—and that is not always an easy task. Actually, we probably need to do a risk assessment on how we should respond. We need to conduct a risk assessment on what we are proposing. If our response to the public health threats of the future is going to be effective and accepted, it will depend upon presenting a risk-based approach that utilizes data from multiple sources and balances science with consumer concerns. As always, I would love to hear from you (gacuff@tamu.edu) with your thoughts about how IAFP can continue to advance food safety worldwide.
|