One Bullet Dodged

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

We got lucky. The Dateline program did not cause shoppers to boycott fresh-cuts, sending produce sales plummeting. But it could easily have worked out differently. And, the last chapter hasn’t been written yet, so the seeds planted in the public consciousness with that Dateline broadcast might yet bear fruit. The PMA research gives some tantalizing hint of this.

Individual companies and industry associations need to think carefully about how to address these types of media. Jim Gorny, Ph.D., United’s vice president of quality assurance & technology, took on the thankless task of an on-camera interview with Dateline. Dr. Gorny really wants to help the industry, but he is the wrong representative in that type of venue. Dateline is not a scholarly, scientific show; it is “gotcha journalism” as entertainment. And the words, like the teachers talking in a Peanuts cartoon, blur into the background as the images come to the forefront.

When Dateline asks for an interview, our institutions should respond positively. But, this is theatre, and the actor selected has to be typecast to present the proper image, because the image presented will be remembered long after the words said are forgotten.

First, the industry representative should be a farmer, because research shows consumers trust farmers. By contrast, rare indeed is the association executive who should be on TV in this type of format, because lobbyists — and that is how they will be portrayed — are not trusted.

Second, since we are talking about food safety, you need to have a mother talking. The words blur but the image remains: “That nice mother wouldn’t put her children, or mine, in any danger.”

Third, avoid scientists. Scientists are vitally important to publish the truth in scientific journals for others to quote. They can even be useful for a thoughtful magazine or op-ed pieces. They are useful in those situations in which people actually want to know the truth.

But these shows, by their very nature, can’t pursue the truth. Where would the drama be if, midway through such a documentary, there were an actual thoughtful scientific discussion that persuasively disproved the whole thesis of the show? Who would keep watching? The show would be pointless.

And scientists are easy portrayed as being evasive when they don’t have all the answers. A farmer and a mom can talk about stewardship of the land for the next generation, love for their children and care in raising food for the next generation.

If we must use a scientist, use an outside expert, such as a university professor, not a paid employee of the produce industry whose credibility is immediately suspect.

Now the industry knew all this, and Margaret D’Arrigo-Martin of D’Arrigo Bros. Co. of California was interviewed for the program. By all accounts, she was brilliant, persuasive and highly appealing. She also was left on the cutting room floor. Quite possibly, she was cut because by agreeing to have an association executive appear on camera, we gave the producers an alternative representative.

It is a lesson worth remembering because the industry is likely to confront the question again. Although PMA’s research found no hysterical response to the show, the show did seem to enter the public consciousness. It doesn’t show up in the headline results such as purchase experience or intent but in the open-ended, unaided responses. For example in PMA’s post-Dateline survey:

• Of the 12 percent of the sample who say they have decreased purchasing fresh-cut produce, 4 percent say the reason is germs or bacteria. No respondents cited these reasons in February.

• Of the 8 percent of the sample who say they will decrease fresh-cut purchases next year, 3 percent say the reason is germs or bacteria. Again, no respondents cited this reason in February.

• Of the 28 percent of the sample who say they do not buy certain types of fresh-cut produce, 3 percent say the reason is germs or bacteria. This was not mentioned in February.

Nothing in the numbers indicates more people are concerned about fresh-cut produce safety post-Dateline than pre-Dateline, but the results mentioned above, plus others scattered throughout the survey, indicate that among those who already were uneasy with fresh-cuts, the publicity surrounding the Dateline story has given a name and focus to this generalized unease.

If there are no other outbreaks, this concern may fade and the issue will be moot. But if there are outbreaks and news reports, the public is gradually being conditioned to accept the tying together of produce with words such as germs and bacteria.

There is a subtle irony here. Years ago, after the scare caused by a 60 Minutes show regarding Alar on apples and the more generalized reaction against pesticides and chemicals represented the rise of groups such as Meryl Streep’s Mothers & Others, the produce industry sent out spokespeople who all basically said the concern about pesticides and chemicals was overdone, and the real issue on food safety was bacteria.

Well, that bacteria is baaack! And the truth is that the very nature of a fresh product leaves certain vulnerabilities to food safety outbreaks. The danger is that a repetition of outbreaks or media reports will continue to raise concerns. At some point, those concerns reach a “tipping point” at which they start influencing the population at large.

We were lucky because the product targeted this time was salad, and salad is principally a food of adults. The 60 Minutes show on Alar caused a panic because children can drink their weight in apple juice every day.

It would be a major mistake for the industry to think this issue is over. We dodged a bullet, but the guns are still loaded.