FEATURE STORY THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF FOOD SAFETY By Joelle Mosso, Assistant Vice President, Science Programs
never-changing target. This goal is to be applauded, but it’s also naïve, oversimplified and unintentionally counterproductive. Food safety is not a binary option - it doesn’t “exist” or “not exist.” To treat it as such immediately creates risk management systems that will be flawed and vulnerable to exploitation. Food safety is a complex topic with varying risks from a multitude of threats. In most cases, no food presents with zero potential for illness - some risks may be acute (toxins, bacterial infections, contaminants) while other risks may be chronic (heavy metals, carcinogens, nutritional imbalances). Similarly, all producers and consumers have differing expectations on what they consider an unacceptable risk. For example, some consumers choose to drink raw, unpasteurized milk while others are afraid to even handle raw milk due to fear that the package may be contaminated. Risk is subjective, on a spectrum, and non-zero at all levels of the food supply chain (food, producer, retailer, consumer). Operationally, it matters little that we have a regulatory requirement for absolute food safety since there is zero possibility of a 100 percent safe/unsafe option for every consumer. In short, complete food safety for all consumers is not achievable. Oversimplifying the complexity of food safety by stating that all food should be safe has unintentionally led to inefficient risk management strategies and the creation of non-productive market pressures for food safety. When the first assumption is flawed, it sets up a false expectation that ultimately makes risk management more challenging since the first step is to counteract the errant first assumption. Simply stated, an argument for safety improvement must begin by counteracting the preconceived belief that food is already safe. That improvement to food safety will require additional investments to reduce risk, and those investments won’t seem necessary if they already consider the status quo acceptable (safe). In a food business, when a product is successfully selling in a market that legally requires safe food, it is, in effect, already considered by the producer and consumer to be safe and acceptable. Food safety should not be a competitive advantage, but it shouldn’t be a disadvantage either. The goal will always be to have safe food for everyone. Safe has variable meanings and is on a risk spectrum, varying for every producer and consumer. It is also unrealistic to assume that all food will be safe simply because regulatory requirements exist and that there will be an overall ethical alignment around one level of safe in the industry. To expect this consensus and ethical alignment in the industry is somewhat akin to expecting a utopian society to naturally occur, a utopia where there would be no hunger, social injustices or criminal acts. While we all would love to live in this society, we also acknowledge real-world conditions differ from utopia and we build systems to protect us from them. Defaulting on a system where the status quo assumes all food is safe and that all players in the supply chain will adhere to creating a non-existent, zero-risk outcome is unrealistic. Designing food
For those who have participated in debates, common logic strategies are used to be able to win the argument and sway the audience. While logical fallacies are technically errors in reasoning, they appeal to human psychology and can often convince the audience quite effectively. We encounter logical fallacies frequently – circular arguments, ad hominems, red herrings, slippery slopes, etc., since they are used in many stories, news segments and marketing campaigns to capture and influence decision-making. A common logical fallacy applied is that of the false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is the reduction of outcomes to only two possible options. Something is either good or bad. Black or white. Ethical and unethical. Binary options are easy to understand and process. They can also lead to severe oversimplification of more complex issues. That oversimplification can have deleterious long- term outcomes for the topic to be considered. Food safety is not a competitive advantage. Why? There is an obvious expectation that food safety is a required element for any food company and food item. It would be unethical if some foods were safe while some, assumed to be less-expensive foods, were not. This would create situations where the less affluent might only be able to afford food that could make them sick at a much higher rate than more costly foods. We have seen this type of unethical food marketplace, with poor communities only having access or the ability to purchase less safe food and water and therefore having a higher rate of foodborne illness and death than more affluent communities. To address this social injustice, rigorous state, federal and international food regulations require that food always be safe. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has a commonly quoted statement: “If it isn’t safe, it isn’t food.” As such, it is illegal to produce and sell unsafe food, and all people, irrespective of class and financial ability, should have access to safe food. Food safety is the stated goal, and complete 100 percent safety is our
22 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com July | August 2025
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease