Online Consumer Complaint Portals - Too Much Transparency?

An interesting article in the NY Times titled Too Much Power to the People? A Food Safety Site Tests the Limits discusses the online complaint site IWasPoisoned.com and the impact it has on food companies.  According the article, the site has collected about 89,000 reports since starting in 2009.   The site provides an outlet for consumers to voice their issues, in this case, the blame for their illness.

While it has proved a key for pointing out linkages to foodborne illness associated with less-than-good operators such as Chipolte, there are some major drawbacks of having too much transparency.

"Restaurant executives have criticized IWasPoisoned for allowing anonymous and unverified submissions, which they say leads to false reports and irresponsible fear-mongering. Some public health officials have objected on the grounds that food poisoning victims can’t be trusted to correctly identify what made them sick."  

So for one, people can publicly bash a restaurant with out substantiating the restaurants involvement.  Depending on the type of agent involved in foodborne illness, the food may have been consumed hours before or days before the symptoms show up.  Unfortunately, people are apt to blame the food they last ate.

People may just want to pile on without actually being sick.  In some cases, people may do it because they don't like a given food establishment, or perhaps they favor a competitor.

The website does review complain submissions and they do provide an opportunity for those establishments which have been blamed for an illness to appeal any complaints.

However, the high level of transparency makes this information readily available for all, including news media outlets who are always hungry to report an outbreak of foodborne illness.

One fact is interesting in how a website like this makes money - they provide an early warning to investor and others willing to pay for leads on a given restaurant that may be involved in an outbreak scenario.

NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/business/too-much-power-to-the-people-a-food-safety-site-tests-the-limits.html
Business Day
Too Much Power to the People? A Food Safety Site Tests the Limits
The Shift
By KEVIN ROOSE FEB. 13, 2018

FSIS Announces Online Posting of Location-Specific Food Safety Data

USDA / FSIS announced today that they will begin sharing information on food safety data specific to slaughter and processing facilities in the United States.

According to the news release:

• "Initially, FSIS will share information on the processes used at each facility, giving more detail than is currently listed in the searchable establishment directory, as well as a code for each facility that will make it easier to sort and combine future datasets by facility. Additionally, FSIS will release results for Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) and Salmonella in ready-to-eat (RTE) products and processed egg products."
• "On a quarterly basis, FSIS will then begin to share other datasets, including results for Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and Salmonella in raw, non-intact beef products; results for Salmonella and Campylobacter in young chickens and young turkeys, comminuted poultry, and chicken parts; routine chemical residue testing data in meat and poultry products; and advanced meat recovery testing data."

This will be interesting.   How will fear mongers spin Salmonella data on social and mass media?  Yes, raw meat can have Salmonella and Campylobacter. 

 

 

FSIS Newsroom
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/news-releases-statements-transcripts/news-release-archives-by-year/archive/2016/nr-071116-01
FSIS to Begin Posting Location-Specific Food Safety Data Online
Data Sharing Plan Will Promote Transparency for Consumers and Further Improve Food Safety at Meat and Poultry Facilities
Jul 11, 2016

Mitigating Food Safety Issues - Monitoring of Social Media

Wall Street Journal has an interesting read about mitigating food safety risks.  Some of the keys mentioned are right on target..."Companies need strong food safety policies that are enforced, extensive employee training and messaging and regular checking of their supply chains through audits, and product testing to help mitigate their risks.."  Then monitoring is discussed at length with specific attention to monitoring of social media.  The point they make is that monitoring social media may be helpful, but it is far from full proof.  Case in point was the Chipotle outbreak where social mentions months before the outbreak were not much different than that during the outbreak.

There are times monitoring social media can help, like the case earlier this year when LA County Health identified an outbreak at a restaurant.  But monitoring of social media has its drawbacks, as we pointed out last year when it was highlighted in the news media as the next best thing in the fight against foodborne illness.  Those who monitor consumer complaints will probably tell you, sometimes a complaint of illness here or there is common, and it can be difficult in telling what is real and what is either a misinterpretation of cause by the consumer (they picked the last thing they ate,  it was a seasonal illness, etc) or the consumer just wanted to complain.

As part of the company's food safety system, monitoring of complaints made formally or made through social media can all help in identifying an issue earlier, but it is far from clear cut.  Much of it will be establishing procedures for identifying key words or patterns in the data.  Best efforts however, are putting policies and procedures in place to prevent issues in the first place.

Wall Street Journal Risk Report
http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2016/02/25/awareness-training-oversight-keys-to-mitigating-food-safety-risks/
Awareness, Training, Oversight Keys to Mitigating Food Safety Risks
February 25, 2016
By Ben DiPietro Biography

The recent food sickness problems at Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.—the chain suffered an E.coli outbreak that led to restaurant closures in nine states and a norovirus outbreak that sickened 140 people in Boston–placed a spotlight on risks faced by companies that sell food.

Companies need strong food safety policies that are enforced, extensive employee training and messaging and regular checking of their supply chains through audits, and product testing to help mitigate their risks, according to food safety experts. Monitoring of social media for early-warning signals of possible foodborne illness issues can be helpful and should be done but won’t always help prevent or contain outbreaks, they said.

Food Safety Quick Hits - Hyperlinking the News for May 29th, 2015

An Ohio firm is recalling jars of salsa after discovering jars were not properly sealed. The titles of the various news articles call it a potential botulism concern, unsealed jars are more likely to be a spoilage issue.

The FDA issued a recall notice for a Colorado company that is recalling raw Macadamia nuts due to the presence of Salmonella.  The Salmonella was found by FDA through routine product testing.  No illnesses have been reported.

A California company is recalling candy - coconut chews because of the potential to contain small stainless steel wire.  It looks to be that a screen within the manufacturing process is the source.  Perhaps a screen broke or was fraying?

In California, patrons filed a lawsuit against a Mexican restaurant that reportedly made them ill.   The LA County Health Department investigated after seeing a number of complaints on Yelp, the social media site for restaurant reviews.

The CDC is investigating a multistate outbreak of Salmonella paratyphi B that may be linked to raw tuna used for sushi.  The epicenter for the cases is in the Southeast US.  As of May 21, 2015, a total of 53 people from 9 states have reported being ill.    CDC is still investigating the source.
Interesting, this variant does not cause parahyphoid fever, which would be characterized by high fever, but is more similar to the symptoms of normal Salmonella  which includes diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12-72 hours after being exposed.

In Wisconsin, 60 people report becoming ill from a Salmonella infection after eating pork carnitas served by a local market.  According to Wikipedia, "Carnitas, literally "little meats," is a dish of Mexican cuisine originating from the state of Michoacán. Carnitas are made by braising or simmering pork in oil or preferably lard until tender. The process takes three or four hours and the result is very tender and juicy meat, which is then typically served with chopped coriander leaves (cilantro) and diced onion, salsa, guacamole, tortillas, and refried beans (frijoles refritos)."  Sounds delicious except for the Salmonella part.

Finally, some reasons why not to take a cruise.  In a report issued by some group that supports journalism in the public interest, they call attention to all the bad stuff that can happen on a cruise ship.  From the report: "Last year over 1,700 passengers and crew members fell sick from gastrointestinal illnesses like norovirus. Since 2012 at least seven children have drowned or nearly drowned in cruise ship pools that rarely have full-time lifeguards. This year, a 21-year-old college student fell overboard and was never found -- one of at least two dozen incidents in the last two years in which cruise passengers or crew have gone overboard, according to media reports." 
Stay home and make your own pork carnitas.

Mining Tweets for Targeting Restaurant Inspections

A number of cities have begun analyzing Twitter or other web-based public review/grading systems such as Yelp as a way to target restaurant inspections.  Basically, they have computer systems which search through tweets and/or reviews looking for specific indicators, collect the data and spit out restaurant names that meet the criteria warranting inspection.

 In the Chicago initiative, using data from March 23, 2013 and November 10, 2014, they flagged 3,594 tweets as potential food poisoning cases. Of these tweets, they determined 419, roughly 12 percent, as likely cases.   While not clearly stated if it is in the same time frame, they conducted 133 inspections and found that 40% of them had serious violations, or 53 establishments.
I guess I am supposed to think this is cool, but it just seems so backwards.  Using resources to scour through people's comments that they post in a few seconds, it just seems a bit, passive. And knowing that foodborne illness can occur in any length of time, from minutes to days after eating a food, what is the chance that someone is going to know which food made them sick.  Also considering that the occasional belly ache is often attributed to some food they ate, and that rarely does one attribute the illness to food they made at home, will inspectors be chasing after establishments that don't deserve to be scrutinized. Clearly, 60% of those inspected did not have significant issues.

Using those same resources, and having a designated line for complaints, would they have not found those 53 establishments, or even better, using those resources to fix issues in establishments before those issues led to someone becoming ill.  

The financial costs of establishing and maintaining these systems were not provided in the HPR piece attached here, so it is hard to say if they are getting bang for the buck. If the cost is minimal, then it is no big deal, especially if they are using this to augment their current inspection system.   But I am inclined to think that more of a direct approach to ensuring safety...regular on site inspections and requirements for establishments to have trained manager/employees. 



Harvard Political Review
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/food-safety-numbers/
Food Safety in Numbers
By Advik Shreekumar

On March 23, 2013, the civic organization Smart Chicago launched an ambitious program to enhance the city’s food safety efforts: Foodborne Chicago. Using a mix of statistical techniques and computer science, Foodborne searches Twitter for complaints of food poisoning, then follows up with users and generates formal investigations. Chicago is not alone in these efforts; San Francisco, Boston, and New York City are all in the process of implementing similar initiatives to better enforce their health codes.

Foodborne Chicago and its sibling programs are bold attempts to modernize governance, harnessing the massive streams of information on social media sites. However, while these initiatives have the potential to dramatically improve public health, they also grant additional power to the companies holding the data. This, in turn, will challenge traditional notions of privacy and property.

Subway Restaurants removes dough conditioning chemical azodicarbonamide

Subway is removing azodicarbonamide, a dough conditioning chemical, from its bread formulation. This chemical can be found in bread sold by numerous retailers and foodservice establishments, however Subway was targeted because of its good nutrition stance.

FDA does allow this product to be used in bread applications. From the Code of Federal Regulations:

172.806 Azodicarbonamide.
The food additive azodicarbonamide may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:
(a) It is used or intended for use:
(1) As an aging and bleaching ingredient in cereal flour in an amount not to exceed 2.05 grams per 100 pounds of flour (0.0045 percent; 45 parts per million).
(2) As a dough conditioner in bread baking in a total amount not to exceed 0.0045 percent (45 parts per million) by weight of the flour used, including any quantity of azodicarbonamide added to flour in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) To assure safe use of the additive:
(1) The label and labeling of the additive and any intermediate premix prepared therefrom shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the Act, the following:
(i) The name of the additive.
(ii) A statement of the concentration or the strength of the additive in any intermediate premixes.
(2) The label or labeling of the food additive shall also bear adequate directions for use.

 Much of the hullabaloo made is that for these reasons: 

1) the chemical is also used in non-food applications such as yoga mats……however, you can find that many chemicals used in our foods are also used in non-food applications.

2) a breakdown product of azodicarbonamide is semicarbazide, a potential hazard…… however, that is formed in the formation of plastic bottles and sealants, but any formation in bread is very low risk.

3) The chemical can be hazardous….but only in applications when working with the chemical with the potential of breathing it in in massive doses, not at 45 ppm.

Presented below are two stories, one from CNN and the other from the Huffington Post. Which one provides a more balanced view? Not CNN. As pointed out in the Huffington piece, people will not need to worry. So no need to worry, it is unlikely that Jared will have to worry about his Subway diet.

I guess this is the trend now…to identify any ingredient that has a long, unidentifiable chemical formula name and that is used in some non-food application. How about this one - dihydrogen monoxide is found in a multitude of applications, both food and non-food… including the manufacturer of cleaning compounds. Additionally, it has been involved in deaths, including a woman who died after drinking 6 liters of it in 3 hours. Time for a ban?

It is funny, on one hand, people want more government intervention into making safe food, but on the other hand, they don’t trust what the government, namely FDA and EPA, have done. 


Subway to remove 'dough conditioner' chemical from bread

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
updated 1:23 PM EST, Thu February 6, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/health/subway-bread-chemical/

(CNN) -- Take a look at ingredients for some varieties of Subway's bread and you'll find a chemical that may seem unfamiliar and hard to pronounce: azodicarbonamide.

Rachael Ray, the Scourge of Food Safety

If you care about the safety of food in any way, you must agree that Rachael Ray is one of the most dangerous of the food show personalities. In the event you don’t watch The View, (and I don’t, but saw this story on the Meatingplace blog http://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/Blogs/Details/33748?allowguest=true), Ms. Ray claims that pink ground meat is safe as long as it is local/organic….that you know the source of your meat. However, research has shown that organic or local foods are not inherently safer than conventional products. That is, they can and will contain the pathogens…if not more. So where does she get her misguided information? And how can ABC televise this?

Maybe it is time for a lawyer guy like Bill Marler to put a little courtroom smack-down on ABC and Rachael Ray. Not likely to happen. But it is certainly criminal that a show can espouse such dangerous, misguided practices to the public. Shame on her for pretending to know something about food and ABC for broadcasting it.

Undercooking beef, pork, or chicken, regardless of the source, poses a risk. If you want your burger pink inside, either understand and accept the risk of foodborne illness or buy irradiated ground beef. Otherwise, use a thermometer to ensure that the center point reaches 160ºF for beef.
So if you must,
http://abc.go.com/watch/clip/the-view/SH002253950000/PL5554876/VD55208821/rachael-ray-on-the-view/moments

Social Media Taking Over for Mom

The Progressive Grocer discusses a study" Clicks & Cravings: The Impact of Social Technology on Food Culture, which finds social/digital media is replacing Mom as the go-to culinary source of knowledge for many people."  These surveys are great references - we sense that more people are using social media as a tool for deciding what to eat, how to prepare it, and then chatting about it with others, but here is a study to support those notions.  

http://www.progressivegrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/consumer-insights/id34891/social-media-redefining-our-relationship-with-food/

"The study was jointly developed and conducted by consumer research firm The Hartman Group and Publicis Consultants USA, a food and nutrition marketing agency. Study results show almost half of consumers learn about food via social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, and 40 percent learn about food via websites, apps or blogs."

Impact on food safety - the internet is the wild west of information, where anyone can write anything.  It is alway important for people to use trusted sites, and to review information provided in that recipe against validated information (foodsafety.gov for example).  If a recipe suggests that you undercook an item, for example to cook chicken to 150F instead of 165F, you should consider not using that recipe.