The Strenuous Life

By Jim Prevor, Editor-in-Chief, Produce Business

What did Theodore Roosevelt think was the kind of citizenry that would produce national greatness? He answered that in another speech, entitled The Strenuous Life, in which Roosevelt explained his position: “I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.”

Which leads us to these questions:

• Precisely how great can our citizens be if they cringe in horror at the infinitesimal risk of a pathogen on a tomato or jalapeño?

• Do we not have a public interest in ensuring that the citizenry is educated in such a manner they are able to evaluate risk?

Obviously, pathogens are bad and should be minimized or eliminated. If FDA knows of a specific producer who is pouring pathogen-laced produce into the system, it should stop that producer. But the issue is whether FDA ought to bankrupt hundreds or thousands of people by banning crops in the hope of obtaining infinitesimal benefits when FDA does not know the specific source of an outbreak.

If we have “come up short in the eyes of those who matter most to our future: our customers, regulators, and legislators,” we have to ask if our food-safety shortcomings are a result of failures in food safety or failures in honest communication.

Many of these issues first came to prominence in the 2006 spinach crisis. This was in some ways unfortunate as the issue there was bagged product being sold to consumers with a marketing promise that it was “ready to eat.” Obviously, marketers who wish to make such promises take on special responsibilities.

However, a typical farmer who grows produce in the dirt has the items rained on in the field where they may also come into contact with animals and humans. The typical farmer is going to grow a product that will sometimes have pathogens on it.

If we do not state this loudly and clearly at every opportunity, we are setting up the industry for unreasonable expectations. There is always in the produce supply a “base level” of pathogens.

That consumers panic upon our discovering a pathogen is not surprising, especially when public-health leadership runs around screaming “fire.” But as Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, the distinguished public-health expert from Minnesota, has pointed out: “For every numerator, there is a denominator.” For public-health authorities to induce panic rather than place things in perspective is simply reprehensible.

There may well be regulation of the produce industry, and we are fortunate that Bryan and PMA and other associations will work hard to make that regulation reasonable. But the meat industry already has regulation, and this is a banner year for E. coli 0157:H7. The poultry industry has regulation, and there is more Salmonella in chicken each year than there is in fresh produce each decade.

Regulation may make people feel “something is being done” — if the regulation is administered wisely, it may even help a bit. But regulation doesn’t resolve the fundamental questions. One can always test water or soil more frequently, always put traps closer, always provide more training, etc.

In fresh produce, where we have no “kill step” such as pasteurization, food safety expenditures are a simple continuum, and a regulatory requirement to stop at some particular place on the continuum will not guarantee safety, even if universally followed.

I do not “fault the agencies’ commitment to protecting public health,” but I balance it with the rights of consumers to live freely and of producers to produce their products. Public health is a value, but not the only value, and if the actions taken in the name of public health are down to the third and fourth decimal place in impact, moderation is reasonable to expect.

A risk is endemic in life. Walk outside and you might get hit by lightning; drive a car and you might have a crash; eat a rare hamburger and you might get E. coli 0157:H7; sample a raw milk cheese and suffer the risk of Listeria. But it is not the purpose of public-health authorities to make our lives risk-free.

Do we have flaws in our industry regarding food safety? Absolutely. The core problem is cultural. Buyers are too quick to abandon food-safety requirements to achieve other goals — say a “locally grown” or “winter import” program — and food-safety standards at buying organizations are “minimums.” In addition, buyers have no incentive to pay extra to get product above that firm’s required standard.

This cultural problem is very difficult to fix, but well worth the attempt.

The public-health authorities also contribute to the problem. Although irradiated hamburger can be purchased at retailers such as Wegmans, the proposal to allow irradiation for the purpose of killing pathogens has wallowed in FDA’s in-basket for almost a decade. Put another way, the very serious food-safety problem of produce is not serious enough to prompt action on technology that could make a difference.

While we look to improve both our industry and public-health infrastructure, Bryan is right to remind us of Theodore Roosevelt. When we tell the population there might be some infinitesimal risk in consumption of a jalapeño, we can remind the citizenry that our national character depends on its having the intestinal fortitude to, in Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “not shrink from danger.”