Without acknowledging that not all risks can be eliminated or controlled - especially for fresh produce and foods without microbial kill steps - there will continue to be little incentive or benefit for risks to truly be identified. Risk identification and characterization are generally still perceived as evidence of failure rather than evidence of proactive risk management. One illness is too much, but zero is unrealistic. Allowing for risk in the food system seems counterintuitive to our goal to reduce foodborne illnesses. The food industry should have a goal of zero risk to consumers, and that must always be the target. However, while one illness will always be too many, zero illness is also unattainable and building systems that only tolerate pass/fail or good/bad outcomes prevents identifying realistic ways to manage risk. This binary risk outcome is an enormous roadblock in the path to continuous improvement since there is rarely any advantage for a company to characterize its true risks within the system. For example, while we openly discuss and recognize that seasonal or geographic factors may influence risk in fresh produce production, what benefit do individual growers gain from fully characterizing that risk when customers and regulators view such identification in isolation—often discrediting the fact that sufficient efforts and programs may already be in place to manage it at an acceptable level? "The paradigm shift to true risk- based management ultimately requires some amount of risk to be acceptable, and it recognizes that different systems, producers and products will have variable levels of risk.
In effect, guilt is easy to prove while evidence of control (or innocence) is almost impossible to defend. Taking a recent real-life event as an example, a pathogen- positive sample originating from a routine sampling event for Salmonella led to a grower losing a multi-million-dollar customer who chose to terminate a contract due to the pathogen finding. This reactive decision was made despite that this positive was in isolation and not associated with any illnesses or process failure evidence. This isolated pathogen result ultimately led to a drastic reaction by the customer and reinforced for the grower that there is little incentive to build systems to identify and monitor for risk. Additionally, there is even less incentive to be transparent with external stakeholders about when risks may be present. In the prior example, we saw a customer interpret a pathogen detection incompletely and with what seems a disproportionate reaction. It is understandable that no one wants food/systems with risk and would naturally reject it. However, believing that a successful strategy is to sever ties with any supplier, farm, product or process once a positive is found from a random test is misguided. More importantly, it is counterproductive and destructive since it reinforces to the food producer that a smarter strategy would be to build food safety programs that always return negative results, regardless of whether that outcome truly reflects the situation. As with all risk, the scariest type is the type you do not know you have. If we interpret each finding of a pathogen, and sometimes even indicator/index organisms, to be viewed as evidence of systematic/gross/preventable failure, then that only further reinforces that identifying risk to optimize managing it is not a sustainable food safety or business strategy. Conversely, this supports a strategy opposite of risk-based management since we are not allowing food producers to investigate risk to manage it without then using that same information as evidence against them.
Would you or a colleague like to stay informed about Western Growers Science updates? Visit our newsletter sign-up page or share it with others, so they can stay up-to-date on the latest news, research and insights from our Science Team.
21 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com March | April 2025
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker