Wow, how quickly the bad-guy designation gets shifted. For two months, and up until just a few days ago, the FDA bore the brunt of press finger pointing in the Saintpaul outbreak. Suddenly, that finger is pointing at the food industry, and produce suppliers in particular, because they resisted an undefined and expensive tracking methodology. Although it is human nature to try to find a haunch on which to sizzle the blame brand, this ignores the fact that a trace back system doesn't address many basic food safety issues.
http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3522
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080728/EDITORIAL/807280306
Forget about all the investments you have made in actually preventing an outbreak in the first place; GAPs, GMPs, HACCP, triple wash, automated dosing systems, optical inspection equipment, and cold chain investments. If you're associated with the food chain, your feet are in the fire for not embracing trace-back.
Can we go back to those pesky economics? How much will it cost taxpayers and food companies to implement a trace-back system? Are there other investment options that would give a better return on the food safety dollar?
In the EU, a group has provided initial funding for a type of trace-back system, based on the technology available in micro-devices, with a pilot program slated for release in 2010.
http://www.traceback-ip.eu/index.php Sounds intriguing, but it appears underfunded at €15,5M for the scope of work. Perhaps this pioneering work can be used to help model a cost effective system elsewhere.
Do you think a trace back system would be an effective tool in the food safety arsenal? Let me know what you think. Meantime, let's all work to help increase the public awareness of the tremendous effort the fresh produce industry has invested into prevention, and give them some well-earned credit.
Monday, July 28, 2008
What about some credit for prevention?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Comments (Click Here to View or Comment):
Post a Comment