The Locavore's Dilemma (25 page)

The public debate on food safety has long been skewed by activists, who, in economist Thomas DeGregori's apt characterization, equate “preservatives with contamination and microbes with health,” and are obsessed with the pesticide-residue molehill while ignoring the germ mountain.
³³
In short, for a long time agriculturalists have relied on pesticides which are, technically speaking, any substance or mixture of substances that kill, repel, control, or mitigate the actions of any pest
likely to damage humans and crops. Unlike animals that could always potentially escape predators, plants have always had a strong evolutionary incentive to develop toxic chemicals and digestive inhibitors as a primary defense mechanism. All plants produce on average a few dozen toxins to protect themselves against fungi, insects, and animal predators. Tens of thousands of these natural pesticides have been discovered. When plants are stressed or damaged by pests (as sometimes happens when synthetic pesticides—meaning pesticides produced by humans in factories—are not applied), they greatly increase their output of natural pesticides, sometimes to levels that are acutely toxic to humans. While both synthetic and natural chemicals can cause cancer in animals at high doses, we typically ingest through our regular diet at least 10,000 more (by weight) of natural than synthetic pesticides. In other words, about 99.99% of all pesticides in our diet are entirely “natural;” a single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens roughly equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in our diet.
³⁴
As Paracelsus (1493–1541), the founder of toxicology, observed a few centuries ago, it is the dose that makes the poison. Any substance, even water, can be hazardous at high enough concentrations. Needless to say, though, public opinion was long ago tainted by beliefs that “natural” substances are not only inherently more benign than synthetic ones, but also that human intervention to control “natural” organisms through “artificial” means will ineluctably prove lethal to
genus homo
.

In terms of food safety, pesticides are a very minor—and in most cases insignificant—issue. While the media is keen to generate public panic over the feeding of unrealistically high doses of a synthetic chemical to experimental animals, it is almost completely silent on the fact that old-fashioned food production and “modern” organic agriculture are much more greatly endowed in harmful microorganisms than the offerings of agri-business. Over 250 different foodborne diseases are caused by consuming beverages and foods that have been contaminated by a wide range of viruses, bacteria, parasites, toxins, metals, and prions,
and through nonfood mechanisms, such as the consumption of contaminated water or contact with animals. According to the latest research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), each year approximately 1 in 6 Americans—48 million people—gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. Of these, by far the most significant are bacteria, viruses, and microbes
³⁵
and, significantly, the vast majority of all U.S. food-related hospitalizations and fatalities nowadays
do not
originate from contaminated batches of agri-business products produced in large facilities, but rather are the result of careless handling and improper preparation inside the home, such as poorly refrigerated foods, unwashed hands and produce, cross-contamination of food through unwashed cutting boards, and insufficiently cooked meat.

To repeat and clarify, the foodborne illness cases in American emergency wards are
not
attributable to the synthetic pesticide and herbicide residues that worry the public so much, but rather can be traced back to “natural” pathogens such as
Campylobacter jejuni
,
Salmonella,
and
E. coli
O157: H7 that often find their way into our food supply through the use of animal manure in agricultural production.
³⁶
Another very good source of illness is raw milk, a prime vector for tuberculosis, diphtheria, severe streptococcal infections, and typhoid fever, among other things.
³⁷

Humanity's food supply has never been inherently “pure, natural, and safe” and only recently corrupted by man-made chemicals and careless industrial practices. On the contrary, it was always afflicted by a large number of “natural” pathogens that are all around us and have been significantly, but not completely, brought under control in the recent past, in large part because of the development of industrial-scale food safety technologies.
³⁸
In other words, there are such things as economies of scale in food safety, both in terms of producing and processing food. To give but one illustration, the science writer Steve Ettlinger describes two of many surprises he encountered while visiting a Wisconsin whey plant a few years ago:

Among other striking features, Ettlinger noticed a network of steel pipes that brought sanitizing products in and out of the operation to keep things clean, that the floors were spotless, and that there was no smell in the plant. Of course, what the science writer observed is typical of all large-scale and state-of-the-art food manufacturing operations, which have extremely detailed and complex food safety management systems that analyze and control biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution, and consumption of the finished product.
⁴⁰
Large-scale operations obviously have much self-interest in preventing foodborne illness outbreaks, if only because of the attendant litigation and decline in sales.

One must keep these basic facts in mind when assessing the locavores' claim on behalf of a highly decentralized system made up of innumerable small farms and processing operations, for, as the agricultural economist Dennis Avery observes, “[s]almonella bacteria are pretty much everywhere, and always have been,” from lettuce, spinach, peanut butter, and unpasteurized juices to ground beef, live chicken, and eggs. The USDA has never tested a cattle herd for
E. coli
O157:H7 without finding it, while the spinach
E. coli
outbreak of the same type of a few years ago that killed three people was traced back to nearby cattle and the wild pigs running around both the cattle and the spinach field. Interestingly, the spinach field was in transition towards organic production, meaning that chemical fertilizers could not be used. In addition,
the manure on the field might not have been composted at a high enough temperature to kill the dangerous type of
E. coli
that has also been found in wild pigs, mice, coyotes, cowbirds, and crows.
⁴¹

The main problem with the locavore's prescription for food safety is that the threat of food contamination by natural pathogens is much more serious in small than massive food production and processing operations because smaller operations can never possibly assemble the same quality of equipment and food safety know-how as much larger firms. True, large operations are not perfect and from time to time the media has a field day reporting on large food recalls and problematic processing plants. In truth, however, the perception that food is becoming less safe is probably driven by increased reporting of smaller outbreaks that were detected through recent technological advances. In other words, the greater media coverage is not driven by more significant problems, but because they can now be more easily detected and acted upon.
⁴²
Although a locavore's system would ultimately make more people sick and kill more of them, the symptoms they would exhibit, such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever, would often be difficult to trace to a specific food item as people eat many different things and, additionally, just as many problems can be traced back to the way food is handled at home. In a locavore's world, only the very worst outbreaks would be publicized.

Sadly, this chapter was being completed as the culprit of the deadliest outbreak of foodborne illness (25 deaths and counting) in a quarter of a century in the United States had just been identified. Not surprisingly, the guilty party in a multi-state outbreak of listeriosis turned out to be not a large agri-business plant with top-of-the-line food safety technologies, but a “pesticide free” and “four generation strong,” family-operated cantaloupe farm located in Southeast Colorado, Jensen Farms, that not only marketed some of its output at local farmers' markets, but also had benefited from the “buy local” campaigns of large retailers in its area, such as King Soopers, Safeway, Wal-Mart, and Sam's Club.
⁴³
According to FDA inspectors,
⁴⁴
a number of factors had
most likely contributed to the introduction, spread, and growth of
Listeria monocytogenes
in the cantaloupes, namely:

Interestingly, according to food industry blogger Jim Prevor (otherwise known as the “Perishable Pundit”), Colorado is an especially unsafe location to grow cantaloupes because their rough skin makes them particularly susceptible to contamination as bacteria can hide out in their crevices. Because rains splatter mud on them, Colorado melons have to be washed post-harvest, a process that can result in cross-contamination among melons and create ideal conditions for bacteria to thrive. By contrast, the dry summers of Arizona and California are much safer for
this fruit because they are watered by drip irrigation and much less likely to get dirty. Cantaloupes produced in those state can thus bypass the rinsing phase and are packaged dry, sometimes right in the field. What to outsiders might look like corporate attempts to cut corners was to the contrary the result of much research sponsored by the California cantaloupe industry.

Prevor adds that the food safety science in cantaloupes was pretty clear before the listeriosis outbreak: “The safest cantaloupes are what are called high desert cantaloupes. Jensen Farms washed all its cantaloupes. Since the science says don't get them wet, this washing is not a food safety matter. It is a marketing matter.” He then goes one step further and observes, “whatever the specific cause of this outbreak, the more general cause is the local food movement. More specifically, the willingness of large buyers [such as Wal-Mart] to waive food safety standards so they can buy regionally.” “The priority,” he says, “can be safe or the priority can be local, but it cannot be both.”
⁴⁵
Words to ponder…

Of course, what is true for produce is also valid for livestock. Another late 2011 news item was an egg recall from a relatively small Minnesota organic producer.
⁴⁶
While no system is perfect and some operations can be badly managed, large confined egg-producing operations have a number of inherent food safety advantages over such small cage-free farms, such as protecting laying hens from predators, soil-borne diseases, and extreme temperatures. The health of confined animals can also be monitored closely at low unit costs and various systems, such as screens through which feces fall so that they are not walked on or eaten and conveyor belts that move feed and eggs without being touched by human hands, can benefit from significant economies of scale. Salmonella can contaminate any animal-based food from any kind of farm operation whatever its size, but bigger is typically better in terms of food safety.
⁴⁷

In the retail sector, there can be no doubt that large supermarkets are inherently safer than farmers' markets which are, in most cases, temporary outdoor events with few facilities and whose vendors have, in
general, received only the most basic training in food hygiene. While customers typically raise no concerns over these issues, during our trips to such markets we couldn't help but notice practices that seemed problematic, including freezer doors left open for significant periods of time and different kinds of raw meat being handled on the same cutting board. Perhaps we would all be better served by heeding the warning of Welsh health experts that “given the restricted facilities at farmers' markets and the early phase of implementation of hygiene management systems by market traders, it may be precautionary to restrict the sale of farm products at farmers markets to those that are regarded as low-risk.”
⁴⁸