Study: Authenticity Trumps Food Safety? Is it a Case of Risk Analysis?

In a study to be published in the journal, Management Science, researchers concluded that people are willing to forgo the results of a poor hygiene inspection of a restaurant if they view that restaurant as authentic. 

The research originated to explain cases where Chinese restaurants, flagged for unhygienic practices such as hanging ducks at room temperature, were still held in high regard by patrons.  In fact, California law was changed to allow 'Chinese-style roast'.

Surprising?  Not really.  We see this with many traditional foods, especially where the science is broadly applied to a category of food, but there is little anecdotal evidence to support the fact that products are safe or not safe.  In this research paper, the authors describe conflicting codes...one based on law and another based upon tradition.  To me, it is a risk decision...certainly a bad inspection report gives one the idea that risk may be there, but people will also bring in their own knowledge of associated risk...has there been any outbreaks associated with 'hanging chickens'?  Haven't Chinese restaurants been hanging chickens for thousands of years?

We see this with canned foods where people will can foods using traditional methods...such as using a boiling water bath to can meat (instead of using a pressure canner).  Their mothers and grandmothers did it this way with no issue, thus there is no risk.  Perhaps those people have not been exposed to the data on the cases of botulism that regularly occur each year and thus do not know the real risk.  (The likelihood of occurrence may be low, but the severity is high).

And conversely, where there is an over emphasis on the risk of something, especially when mass media spins a given item, people are willing to view something as risky where there is no scientific support.  So in this example, these same people will get inundated with information on the supposed dangers related to pesticides in food (which represents a smaller risk, based upon USDA testing compared to risk of botulism when improperly canning meat), and go to greater lengths to avoid commercially grown produce.

With the hanging chickens, there is probably a lower risk with this specific application in that spoilage organisms outcompete pathogens on the bird, and then provided the bird is properly cooked, there is little risk.  However, law is written to take a broad range of applications into account.  It is hard to write laws specific to every application.


Management Science
http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1903
Conflicting Social Codes and Organizations: Hygiene and Authenticity in Consumer Evaluations of Restaurants

David W. Lehman
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, lehman@virginia.edu
Balázs Kovács
University of Lugano, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland, kovacsb@usi.ch
Glenn R. Carroll
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, gcarroll@stanford.edu

Abstract

Organization theory highlights the spread of norms of rationality in contemporary life. Yet rationality does not always spread without friction; individuals often act based on other beliefs and norms. We explore this problem in the context of restaurants and diners. We argue that consumers potentially apply either of two social codes when forming value judgments about restaurants: (1) an apparently rational science-based code of hygiene involving compliance with local health regulations or (2) a context-activated code of authenticity involving conformity to cultural norms. We propose that violations of the hygiene code recede in importance when the authenticity code is activated. This claim is supported by empirical analyses of 442,086 online consumer reviews and 52,740 governmental health inspections conducted from 2004 to 2011.

Keywords: organizations; institutions; social codes; authenticity; regulatory noncompliance; consumer value ratings; restaurants; health grades

History: Received March 1, 2013; accepted December 10, 2013, by Gérard P. Cachon, organizations. Published online in Articles in Advance.

What is the Risk? - Household Germ Study

A newly released “study”, the 2013 NSF International Household Germ Study, has sparked some media attention. http://www.nsf.org/business/newsroom/pdf/2013_germ_study_FOR-WEB-ONLY.pdf

The summary report discusses the analysis of 14 common kitchen items for the presence of E. coli, Salmonella, yeast and mold, and Listeria. In they identify:

The six “germiest” items contained the following microorganisms that can cause sickness:
1.) Refrigerator vegetable compartment: Salmonella, Listeria, yeast and mold
2.) Refrigerator meat compartment: Salmonella, E.coli, yeast and mold
3.) Blender gasket: Salmonella, E.coli, yeast and mold
4.) Can opener: Salmonella, E.coli, yeast and mold
5.) Rubber spatula: E. coli, yeast and mold
6.) Food storage container with rubber seal: Salmonella, yeast and mold 

And share their analysis on organisms found.

• E. coli – 36 percent of items contained E. coli. Items with E. coli included the refrigerator meat compartment, rubber spatula, blender gasket, can opener and pizza cutter.
• Salmonella – 36 percent of items had Salmonella including the refrigerator vegetable and meat compartments, can opener, blender gasket and the rubber seal on a food storage container.
• Yeast and mold – All 14 items (100 percent) tested positive for yeast and mold, and six items (43 percent) tested positive at concerning levels. The six items with concerning levels of yeast and mold were the refrigerator vegetable compartment, rubber spatula, blender gasket, refrigerator ice and water dispensers, and the rubber seal on a food storage container.
• Listeria – 14 percent of items tested positive for Listeria. The refrigerator vegetable compartment contained Listeria, as did the refrigerator door seal.

While the summary of the “study” highlights the need for cleaning in the kitchen, it is unknown to what degree this is actually a scientifically based study (statistically sound, peer reviewed, etc). The results are also questionable - the percent of samples found to be positive for Salmonella and E. coli is very high compared to previously published studies. (It is also important to note that this is generic E. coli, not necessarily pathogen E. coli). It would have been nice if they published the actual results so we could see the number of kitchens sampled (was it one kitchen?), percent positive for each item, etc.

Another item missed in this report is the impact of cross contamination during handling of raw foods and subsequent cleaning. This is when there is most likely to be transfer of pathogens to food contact surfaces, including appliance, as well as other foods. Along with this, there is the need for cleaning practices immediately after handling and processing (proper use of cleaning cloths and the use of cleaning/sanitizing agents). 

So yes, proper, routine cleaning of kitchen appliances and utensils is very important, and NSP does provide nice links for cleaning various kitchen appliances, but they miss what many consider a bigger risk for pathogen cross contamination in the kitchen – the potential for cross contamination during handling, processing, and subsequent cleaning. And there will be many who read this and overreact, thinking that their kitchen is full of Salmonella. Unfortunately, too others will carry this story not making any qualifying comments, but rather will probably further embellish upon the results.

EWG's Dirty Dozen of Fruit and Vegetables Overstates Real Risk

Each year the Environmental Working Group, a consumer activist organization, releases a list it calls the ‘Dirty Dozen’ - the fruits and vegetables found to that were found to have residual pesticides based upon USDA and FDA analysis. Then the news outlets churn this report out, making consumers worry about the apples and strawberries in their refrigerator.

However, this report does not communicate the real risk. First, the levels found are well below anything that would pose an appreciable risk. Further, this ranking does not have any scientific basis. In a research article published in Journal of Toxicology (abstract below) by Winter and Katz (2011), they state:

In summary, findings conclusively demonstrate that consumer exposures to the ten most frequently detected pesticides on EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” commodity list are at negligible levels and that the EWG methodology is insufficient to allow any meaningful rankings among commodities. We concur with EWG President Kenneth Cook who maintains that “We recommend that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic” [1], but our findings do not indicate that substituting organic forms of the “Dirty Dozen” commodities for conventional forms will lead to any measurable consumer health benefit.

It is important that consumers include fruits and vegetables as part of their diet. They should not be deterred by headlines that would make them think otherwise.


Dirty Dozen: EWG Reveals List Of Pesticide-Heavy Fruits And Veggies
Huffington Post 06/19/2012 8:05 am Updated: 06/19/2012 8:17 amhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/dirty-dozen-foods-list-2012-ewg_n_1606256.html

What could be purer than a single ingredient?

As health-minded consumers work to avoid processed meals and turn their focus to whole foods, we may find ourselves picking up fruits and veggies more often. The average American currently eats about 100 pounds of fresh produce per year, but that number could be a lot higher. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends adults eat two to three daily servings of fruits and veggies, only one-third of us meet that recommendation. 

Clearly, nothing should deter efforts to consume more fresh produce, the healthfulness of which is undeniable. But, as the latest iteration of an annual report reveals, there are some other considerations that health-conscious consumers must face from the supermarket aisle.

For the eighth year in a row, the nonprofit advocacy organization Environmental Working Group has released their list of the twelve most pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables on the market as part of their 2012 Shoppers Guide. Overall, they found that 68 percent of the food samples tested had detectable pesticide residues -- even after they had been washed or peeled. Many of the fruits and vegetables listed this year will look familiar to those who follow the yearly report -- apples and bell peppers once again top the list.

Certain pesticides have been identified as potential carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and have been associated with learning and developmental delays in children.

"Organophosphate pesticides are of special concern since they are associated with neurodevelopmental effects in children,” said EWG toxicologist Johanna Congleton in a statement. “Infants in particular should avoid exposure to these pesticides since they are more susceptible to the effects of chemical insult than adults."

Indeed, new research into the pesticide loads of baby food purees made with green beans, sweet potatoes and pears showed high contamination rates in both green beans and pears. Sweet potatoes, by contrast, had virtually no trace of pesticides. 

To learn more about individual pesticides and health risks, check out the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's report on human exposure. 

To compile the rankings, EWG researchers looked at 45 popular fruits and vegetables based on pesticide-load reports conducted by the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration. The database includes 60,700 samples taken over a 10 year period, beginning in 2000. It's important to note that all of the testing is conducted on fruits and vegetables that have been washed and/or peeled -- the typical precautions taken by American consumers.

The researchers factor in how many of the samples test positively for detectable pesticides, how many have more than two discrete pesticides, the concentration (measured by parts per million) of the pesticides found and the highest number of pesticides found in any single sample. The researchers also looked at the total pesticide load of the fruit or vegetable crop as a whole.

And while the list is comprehensive, the ranking doesn't capture all information: For example, though apples were ranked as the most contaminated overall, imported nectarines had the unique distinction of having a full 100 percent rate of positive pesticide test results, above any other product. Bell peppers and grapes were both commonly contaminated with 15 different pesticides in a single sample -- the highest overall diversity of contamination. 

Still, even the researchers who conducted the pesticide exposure studies don't recommend giving up the "Dirty Dozen" outright. 

"The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh [sic] the risks of pesticide exposure," they wrote, recommending instead that consumers purchase organic options wherever available and then choose items from the concurrent "Clean 15" list that details which fruits and veggies have the lowest pesticide loads and residues.


Lots of confusion when it comes to pesticides

BY PHIL LEMPERT June 19, 2012 9:55AM
(http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/food/13183396-423/lots-of-confusion-when-it-comes-to-pesticides.html)

Are you concerned about pesticides?

Sixty percent of consumers express a high concern about pesticide residues, much of which is based on misleading information, according to The Alliance for Food and Farming, a non-profit organization that represents organic and conventional farmers and farms of all sizes. Established in 1989, the Alliance’s goal is to deliver credible information to consumers about the safety of fruits and vegetables. Teresa Thorne, Alliance spokesperson, reported to us that recent surveys show that 29 percent of consumers are buying less fruits and vegetables due to concerns about pesticide residues.

The issue of pesticide residues can be very complex and terms often are used that are unfamiliar to many of us.

The Alliance’s website, safefruitsandveggies.com, is a chance for shoppers to explore science-based information about pesticide residues. The mere “presence” of a pesticide does not mean that the food is harmful, and to demonstrate this fact, the Alliance has provided a pesticide calculation tool, developed by Dr. Robert Krieger, toxicologist with the Personal Chemical Exposure Program at the University of California, Riverside, to see how many servings a man, woman, teen or child could consume and still not have any adverse effects from pesticide residues. Because of the complexity of the residue issue, the calculator was designed to be an easy way to show the very minute levels of pesticide residues that are found (when and if present at all).

NY Times reports E. coli on Chicken...oh noooooo

What would we do without the occasional ‘shocking’ story about raw meat containing bacteria, in this case, a study that E. coli was found on chicken? Yes, raw meat, including chicken, can and will have E. coli associated with it, as well as some pathogens such as Salmonella and Campylobacter. This will occur whether it is conventionally processed, organic, or even farm raised. Those processing chicken put in steps to help reduce the level of bacteria, but it is nearly impossible to eliminate all bacteria on a raw product (one that you would still want to buy). I don’t want a farmer or processor treating my chicken to a point that eliminates all of the bacteria, and neither should you. It would not be a chicken that you would want to buy.  

Have we become such germaphobes that we cannot longer tolerate the thought that E. coli might be on a raw chicken or raw beef. What, you don’t think that soon after you put on your underwear that you have a few E.coli on them? Or on our hands after we use the restroom? And what do we do, we wash them. And for raw meat and poultry products…..we cook them (and keep our kitchen counter clean as well).

A few problems with this study, one pointed out by our own Dr. Cutter in the NY Times article below. (You can link to the published report http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/fecal-contamination-in-retail-chicken-products.)

They constantly refer to the E. coli contamination as feces. Although linked, these are two different images. Yes, there may be a few E.coli in your underwear, or even on your hands after you use the restroom, but would you call it feces? Have you ever seen feces on a raw chicken breast? Does your chicken breast smell like poop? E. coli is of fecal origin, and it can cross contaminate onto food and surfaces such as your hands, but to what degree are feces particles present…microscopic at best. And if that thought still concerns you, then you better live in a bubble with your colon direct linked to the sewer pipe.

Another issue is that the study does not look at actual levels of E. coli per bird, just the absence or presence. Therefore, it is possible that there may only be an extremely low level of E.coli there…and based upon real scientific studies, we know that this is the case. So we start with a bird where there are billioins and billions of E. coli present in the intestine, the bird is eviscerated, cleaned, and packaged. Now, there only has be a few organisms present for the test to show a positive. I am surprised the number isn’t even higher….but that would be no more concerning.

Is it surprising that the person who conducted the study is a vegan? So what is the agenda? I have no problems with those people who choose not to eat meat. But please don’t push that agenda onto others through the use of ill designed studies.

The real take away…cook your food….and use a thermometer to verify.

48% of Chicken in Small Sample Has E. Coli
By STEPHANIE STROM
NY Times Published: April 11, 2012

A recent test of packaged raw chicken products bought at grocery stores across the country found that roughly half of them were contaminated with the bacteria E. coli.

E. coli, which the study said was an indicator of fecal contamination, was found in 48 percent of 120 chicken products bought in 10 major cities by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group that advocates a vegetarian diet among other things. The study results were released Wednesday.

“Most consumers do not realize that feces are in the chicken products they purchase,” said Dr. Neal D. Barnard, president of the group. “Food labels discuss contamination as if it is simply the presence of bacteria, but people need to know that it means much more than that.”

Food safety specialists said the findings were a tempest in a chicken coop, particularly because the test was so small and the E. coli found was not a kind that threatened public health. 

Cola, BPA, and Our Aversion to Risk

Recently, Campbell Soup made the decision to move away from cans that contain BPA the lining. Was it justified? FDA initially concluded that BPA was not a risk, but after public pressure, they are reevaluating its safety.

 Another controversy brewing is the caramel color that gives cola soft drinks their brown color. The chemical, 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), is formed when the caramel color is manufactured. According the FDA, the levels found in soda are well below any concern. The FDA spokesman, Doug Karas stated "A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents”. However, the consumer watchdog group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), doesn’t agree. They have petitioned FDA to have 4-MI banned.

 How do the risks associated with certain chemicals in our food stack up against non-food related risks? For the consumer, this question is difficult to answer. In evaluating the risk associated with a chemical, numerous studies are completed. The scientists issue reports and from these reports, numerous interpretations are made, including ones by industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and government agencies. Then some of these interpretations make their way to the consumer, either through the mass media (TV, newsprint) or through social media (websites, blogs). 

The studies that are conducted to determine risk are rarely perfect. Animal models, where large quantities are injected into small animals such as rats, are often used for toxicity determinations. With these, there is always a question of how realistic it is when compared to humans and their normal living conditions. When large scale human surveys are used to determine risk, it is often difficult to control all of the variables including what people eat, their daily habits, and their genetic makeup. In the end, we hope that conclusions that are drawn are done are unbiased and done in the best interest of the public.

 Public opinion polls have been done that show that that is an increasing concern in the consumers’ perception of food hazards. The apparent lack of trust on these technical risk assessments and this can be linked to a number of factors. One is the stories that are reported in the news media and how they are reported. In addition to television and print news, many people now use the internet for their information. On the internet, we see the whole gamut of information, from the scientific studies themselves to the totally unscientific opinion pieces. 

One of the primary fears that people have is cancer. Certainly past tragedies provide an underpinning for the public’s concern. Asbestos and tobacco are two examples of cancer related items that have received a high level of media coverage and have led to people being skeptical. So when a linkage is made between a chemical in food and cancer in the news or the media, it will get attention. The question of the level of risk, however, is often more difficult to discern. 

How should one respond? First, consumers should inform themselves as best they can by using valid sources of information. It is also important to understand the bias of those providing the information, and try to obtain a balance in what is read. Remember that the information out there is rarely clear cut, so it is important for consumers to make a determination where they feel comfortable.

Links

http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/06/soda-wars-can-the-color-in-your-cola-give-your-cancer/?iid=hl-main-lede?xid=gonewsedit#ixzz1oRRVsFCH
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/03/05/under-pressure-from-parents-advocacy-groups-campbells-goes-bpa-free/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/10/25/bpa-is-still-ok/