Each year in the U.S., there are an estimated 76 million cases of food-borne illness--more than half of them of unknown cause. This translates into 325,000 hospitalizations and an estimated 5,000 deaths. Indeed, hardly a week goes by without a major food recall. It could be eggs tainted with Salmonella bacteria or worries about Listeria in poultry or even a fatal E. coli outbreak in a fast-food restaurant.
Scary, yes. An epidemic? No. According to Charles E. Sizer, the director of the National Center for Food Safety & Technology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, the quality of food in the U.S. is among the world's highest. The pathogens may seem to be multiplying, but that's because more are being identified by Sizer and his colleagues, thanks to advances in biological and pathological research methods. Researchers are also adding to the arsenal of weapons that food processors can call on to further reduce food risks.
BUG ZAPPERS. The NCFST has a broad mandate. Researchers are looking at everything from more effective sterilization methods to making processed foods taste better. One of the things that NCFST scientists are studying is how pulsed electrical fields can be used to electrocute bacteria. To better understand the nature of outbreaks and how they spread, the lab is developing fast methods to genetically fingerprint pathogens. And since irradiation can alter the plastic or styrofoam that food is shipped in, the NCFST is also examining new packaging materials.
Sizer, who has been at the center since March, 1998, holds a number of patents in the U.S. and abroad in the areas of food safety, packaging, and processing. Recently, he talked about the challenges facing food processors with BusinessWeek correspondent Julie Forster at the NCFST offices in Bedford Park, Ill. Portions of their conversation follow:
Q: The number of recalls has gone up significantly in 2000. Cargill Inc. recalled nearly 17 million pounds of poultry products. American Foods Group recalled more than 1 million pounds of ground beef suspected of causing E. coli illnesses in the Midwest. Is the U.S. food supply growing less safe? A: I think it's the opposite: We just know more about the outbreaks. We have the ability now to link geographically distributed products. If someone got sick in Chicago and someone else got sick in San Francisco, [we now know] if it's exactly the same organism and would strongly suspect that it came from the same food.
Q: How do these recalls and outbreaks affect consumer confidence? A: They affect consumption patterns dramatically. In Europe now, there are dramatic changes in the amount of beef that is being consumed because of [mad cow disease]. Two years ago in the U.S., we saw a significant decrease in the consumption of alfalfa sprouts [because of] Salmonella and E. coli. We also saw a precipitous drop in the amount of raw oysters consumed due to a large Vibrio outbreak. There's another factor, though: Publicity can numb the public. Consumers get to the point where they don't respond anymore. It's a problem. If you put warning labels on everything, then nothing means anything.
Q: What's the solution? A: You have to tell people about the dangers they may face. There is a lot that people can do to take food safety into their own hands. We can do a better job of educating students from grade school to high school about food preparation, washing hands, hygiene.
Q: What about the pathogens--are they becoming more virulent? A: I don't think so. We have seen that there are some pathogens that can survive, for example, in fresh apple juice where previously they could not. Whether this has recently emerged or whether we've just learned that, I don't know.
Q: Then how can we make our food safer? A: The most effective way to do this is through an active process such as irradiation. We know it works. Radiation is pretty mild--it has little effect on the food--but it has a large effect on bacteria. Also, there have to be approvals for different kinds of packaging materials, and there has to be a significant investment in food-processing infrastructure. And few companies will make this investment without a degree of certainty that the new process will be accepted, both from a regulatory standpoint and from a consumer standpoint.
Q: The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Agriculture Dept. (USDA) have already approved low levels of gamma radiation to kill pathogens in some meats. You're also looking at how electron-beam irradiation effects packaging materials. What have you found? A: We are looking at the so-called radiolytic compounds that are formed when you irradiate plastics with an electron beam. The levels [of radiation] are very, very low--so low that if [the compounds] did migrate into the food, the effect would be insignificant.
One of our researchers, Dr. George Sadler, has filed a number of petitions with the FDA. He has one petition to show equivalency of gamma, e-beam, and X-ray because the chemical mechanism is the same for all three of those different forms of radiation. Gamma has been approved with specific plastics, but the industry is not looking at gamma because it has a more significant effect on the food flavor. [In February, the FDA approved this petition, giving the industry the first usable plastic packaging for e-beam irradiation.]
Q: What about the policy side? Currently, companies recall products voluntarily. Do you think Congress should give the USDA the authority to remove products from the shelf? A: That would be a disaster. Would you want to put a regulatory agency where they have to make all the decisions for all the plants in the U.S.? Only the company has the knowledge to do this. In fact, I can't think of a single example of a company that refused to do a recall when ordered to.
The present system is very effective. When you see the way that companies react to a recall, it's incredible. If a recall is necessary, a company can identify a certain lot and where it is. Some can do this within minutes. They know exactly where it has been shipped and how they can get it back under control.
Q: What about the meat processors? Are companies skirting safety to cut costs? A: Companies are finding that you don't cut back on safety to cut costs. Consumers sometimes worry that irradiation allows meat processors to clean up and sell poor-quality meat. I really don't think that's the case. You have to use very high quality meat to retain flavor quality after it has been irradiated. With irradiation, the shelf life is six to eight weeks instead of just a couple of days.
Q: Are meat processors hesitant to use irradiation because it demands that they use higher quality meats? A: Well, not only is it going to cost the processors, it's going to cost the consumer. Producers have to have a high level of confidence that consumers will be willing to pay 5 cents to 20 cents more a pound for beef for the guarantee that it's safe. It's a very significant investment for the company to set up irradiation equipment. But ultimately, the consumer will pay for it.
Q: So irradiation isn't currently being widely used? A: It's just starting to be used, but it's still insignificant for now. We can make any food safe, but will it still taste good? The whole issue is quality. So when we process things, it's a very harsh process that can lead to product deterioration. We're trying to tailor these processes to have a reduced effect and still provide the same or better level of safety.
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed.
Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video.
To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here.
Copyright 2001 , by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
