On the Chipotle Food Safety Outbreaks

Much has been written in the past couple weeks about the foodborne illnesses contracted by Chipotle customers.  I've been a bit reluctant to weight in because, at least in some social media circles, there seemed to be some pleasure taken in Chipotle's misfortune.  From my perspective, however, I don't want to delight in someone else's misfortune (particularly some unsuspecting food consumer's foodborne illness) even if I've previously been critical of the vendor's marketing practices.   What I will say is that Chipotle engaged in a variety of marketing practices  (e.g., going non-GMO, no hormone, etc.) the best science suggests have no material impact on food safety, and yet the moves were likely aimed (at least in some part) to increase the perception (rather than the reality) of food safety.  

Marketing aside, there is a real trade-off to be made between selling "clean", fresh, food sourced from small-local vendors and food safety.  There are likely some taste benefits with fresh, unfrozen food and there is nothing inherently wrong with being willing to pay a bit more for wares from smaller more local providers.  But, choosing these options may make ensuring food safety a bit more challenging.  

That's the message I tried to communicate to the reporter Kimberly Leonard for this piece in US News & World Report.  She quoted me as saying:

““If you want to make products fresh, that means you’re not going to use a preservative or it’s going to be unprocessed,” says Jayson Lusk, president-elect for the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, who has been critical of Chipotle’s marketing practices. “It does provide a real tradeoff in terms of providing a safe product for the consumer.””

and

“Lusk says his research has shown that the increase in demand for all-natural, so-called “clean” food, is a “real challenge to food safety.”

“We tend to have this idea that small is clean and safe – it could be true but it’s not necessarily true,” Lusk says. “You’ll have more food waste and it will be more expensive, and your food safety is more of a challenge. … It’s just a trade off they make.””

I touched on this same topic for a chapter on technological improvements related to food safety I wrote for my forthcoming book, Unnaturally Delicious: 

“The bigger problem, however, is what happens to the safety of food when seemingly unnatural ingredients are not used. Keeping food safe without using chemical additives is a big challenge for food manufacturers and retailers. Consumers are increasingly demanding fresher, more natural, “clean” food. Yet, as one food safety expert told me, “It’s a tremendous strain on the food-producing industry. If you take away growth inhibitors, what do you do?” One executive of a large food retailer remarked, “As consumers are asking for fresh and more natural food, we have to take out ingredients and preservatives, which makes food less safe.” Fresh foods might have taste advantages, but they also tend to have shorter shelf lives, increasing the likelihood of earlier spoilage and food waste. Moreover, research and development costs involved in reformulating preservatives to increase the perception of naturalness are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher food prices, even when the preservatives’ underlying chemical properties have not changed.”

Here's another portion of the book related to a discussion I had with Frank Yiannas, the VP of food safety for Walmart (written well before news of the Chipotle outbreaks emerged):

“I started by asking about the size of Walmart. More than 120 million Americans (more than a third of the U.S. population) shop at Walmart every week. Does the sheer scale of the operation make the U.S. food system riskier? If Walmart has an outbreak, multitudes would be sickened. Yiannas replied: “One out of every four dollars spent on food are spent at a Walmart. We can make a big difference. Large organizations like Walmart result in a safer food system.” He points out that when Walmart makes a change, it affects the whole system. Sure, smaller companies might have outbreaks that affect fewer people, but when lots of small companies are having lots of small outbreaks, the problem is more widespread. A downside to small companies, said Yiannas, is that they can’t easily invest in improving the system as a whole. While Walmart often attracts negative attention because of its size and scale (e.g., Do they pay workers fairly? Do they hurt local mom-and-pop busineses?), at least in the world of food safety, their size has significant benefits for its customers, and as I’ll soon discuss, even for non-customers.”

The Future for GMO Foods

On a number of occasions, I've been asked questions like, "What will it take for consumers to become accepting of GMO foods?"  My guess is that we probably aren't going to see much movement resulting from new information or new communication strategies, but rather I suspect a bigger catalyst may be the technology itself.  When scientists produce a product people really want, consumers probably won't care whether it's labeled and they'll overlook whatever small perceived risks are present.  

A while back when writing about the duplicity of a many food companies on the issue of GMO labeling, I wrote

“For now, food companies are not required to add labels indicating the presence of genetically engineered ingredients. But, it might ultimately be in their best interest to do it voluntarily, and in a way that avoids the negative connotations implied by the labels that would have been mandated in state ballot initiatives.

Some day in the near future, after concerted efforts to educate the public and create consumer-oriented biotechnologies, we may see food companies clamoring to voluntarily add a label that proclaims: proudly made with biotechnology.”

I've been reading Dan Charles's 2001 book Lords of the Harvest.  While I could quibble with some of the book's tone and framing of the issues, overall it is an educational and fascinating historical account of the emergence of biotech crops, including many first-hand interviews with the key players (many of whom are still active today).  

Writing about a new genetically engineered tomato that had longer shelf life and better processing characteristics that preserved taste, Charles includes a passage that indicates how GMOs might have evolved  differently (and might still evolve differently) in the public perception.  He writes the following about activities circa 1996:

“Best and his colleagues at Zeneca Plant Sciences had spent an enormous amount of time cultivating British journalists and lining up partners in the food business. They’d already decided that this tomato paste would be packaged in special cans and labeled as the product of ‘genetically altered tomatoes,” even though such labels weren’t required. Two large supermarket chains, Sainsbury and Safeway, agreed to carry the product and promote it. They even turned genetic engineering into a marketing gimmick, advertising the launch of the tomato paste as ‘a world-first opportunity to taste the future.’

The Zeneca tomato paste was in fact purely an experiment in marketing. The tomatoes were grown during a single summer in California and processed using conventional methods, then packaged and flown to Europe. As a consequence, the genetically engineered paste actually cost more to produce than conventional tomato paste and tasted exactly the same. Yet Zeneca and its partners decided to charge less than the going rate for it. They were willing to take a financial loss just to find out if the British public would buy a genetically engineered product.

The answer turned out to be an unequivocal ‘yes.’ Through the summer of 1996 Zeneca’s red cans of tomato paste, proudly labeled ‘genetically altered,’ outsold all competitors.

‘You need to give the consumer a choice,’ says Best. ‘Once they had that choice, eaten it for a couple of years, found that there was no big deal, I think the whole thing would have gone away.’”

So, what happened?  A confluence of events.  Mad Cow was soon discovered in Britain, which heightened food fears and undermined food regulatory agencies (who'd previously promised it was safe to eat beef).  Charles seems to blame Monsanto who he argues focused more on gaining regulatory approval than on charting a path that would engage the public on the issue. In several spots in the book, Charles talks about how Best, and Salquist with Calgene in the US,  masterfully shaped public acceptance for their tomatoes products before bringing them to market.   

 But, as I see it, it was also the technology itself.  While farmers could clearly see the benefits of herbicide-resistant and Bt crops, and they quickly snatched them up in every location where they were allowed, consumers couldn't and still can't.  Fast forward 20 years, and while "GMOs" have become a lighting rod and a proxy-fight for all sorts of agricultural issues,  the underlying reality of "who is  perceived to benefit" still hasn't changed.   I think the anti-biotech crowd knows this because they've fought hard to keep some of the most promising consumer-oriented products from the market.  

So, what will it take to change consumer acceptance of GMOs?  New companies with new products who want to sell and tout the use of biotechnology rather than hide it.  One of the implicit lessons of Charles's book is that companies who seem dominant and powerful today are often upended by entrepreneurs with a new products and a new vision for the future.  My bet is that the same forces will eventually end our current and long-standing quagmire related to public perceptions of GMO foods.  

Genetically Modified Pigs 2

Yesterday I linked to a recording of a panel discussion on GMO pigs.  I now see that CBC news has an article on the topic.  Here's a bit of what I had to say:

“Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University, agrees.

”These are all very different traits that have very different potential impacts,” he told The Current.

However, most people don’t know much about genetic engineering, he said.

”So I think that makes it hard to discuss with someone in the general public.”

He noted that the genetic modifications that researchers are making to pigs are “aimed at addressing what we’d all probably agree are important problems.”

”There are risks with these technologies, there are risks with every technology,” he said. “There are also risks with not approving these technologies.”

But he acknowledged that surveys show that the public has a general aversion to genetic modification and is willing to pay more to avoid GMO products.

”I don’t think it’s necessarily a fear of genetic engineering — it’s a fear of uncertainty,” he said.

That aversion can be offset somewhat if people know why the animals are being modified, he added.”

Genetically Modified Pigs

A few weeks ago I participated in a panel discussion on CBC radio out of Canada on the topic of genetically modified animals.  They aired the story this morning.  You can list to the whole thing here.

Potential Impacts of GMO Cowpeas in Africa

The journal Agricultural Economics recently published a paper I co-authored with Sika Gbègbèlègbè who now works for the International Livestock Research Institute (other coauthors are Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer, Razack Adeoti, and Ousmane Coulibaly).  

The abstract:

“Genetically modified (GM) crops could increase economic growth and enhance living standards in Africa, but political issues have slowed the use of biotechnology. This is the first study that assesses the potential impact of GM crops in Africa while considering the preferences of producers and consumers towards GMOs as well as the income and price risks they face. The study uses a choice experiment to estimate the ex ante economic impact of a novel technology, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cowpea, on producers and consumers in Benin, Niger and northern Nigeria. The experiment involves the simulation of a market transaction similar to those in open air markets in West Africa. During the market simulation, respondents are informed about the advantages and disadvantages, including health risks, of Bt cowpea. The results from the study suggest that cowpea growers and consumers in Benin and northern Nigeria prefer Bt to conventional cowpea for health safety reasons. The results estimate that social welfare in Benin, Niger and northern Nigeria would increase by at least US$11.82 per capita annually with Bt cowpea, if seed sectors are operating smoothly. With inefficiencies in seed sectors and the potential for cowpea acreage increase, the estimated social welfare increase in the region would be about US$1.26 per capita annually.”