Consumer Expectations of a Safe Food Supply Chain: A Speech before the American Food Industry Association by Linda F. Golodner, President of the National Consumers League

AFIA Expo 03. Minneapolis , MN. May 6, 2003

Since the 1970s important changes have taken place in food and agriculture.  Today there is much more cross-border competition – the ingredients in one consumer’s meal can originate from anywhere in the United States or from another part of the globe.  There have been tremendous changes in biotechnology, and a great variety of products that provide consumers with low fat meat, fortified cereal, free-range, and even turkey, duck and chicken rolled into one.  Although, I don’t quite think that happens on the farm. 

And while American consumers have been enjoying this variety and choice, the industry together with the government have worked to apply the science of risk assessment to food safety decision-making.  HACCP has changed the way most of the industry evaluates critical points of possible contamination – and most of our food supply is among the safest around the globe.  I say “most of” because as you know, there are operators in the food chain from the farm to the table who do not implement HACCP, who have been incompetent, irresponsible and who do not give their customers product that is safe.

Assuring food safety – reducing the incidence of foodborne illness -- continues to be a challenge – and a difficult one.  We have changed our eating patterns – more people are eating outside the home, demanding more chicken, ground beef and salads – and what we call ethnic foods one day become standard “Americanized” the next – Chinese, Thai, Mid-Eastern.  Consumers are demanding fresh, safe food from the local deli or fast food restaurant. 

There are now new food production and processing technologies, but there are still the new and persistent pathogens that put over 300,000 people in the hospital and kill 5,000 a year.  And there are tens of millions of people who do get sick from foodborne illness every year.  I doubt is there is anyone in this room who has not had foodborne illness.  And our population is aging – those who are most vulnerable to foodborne illness – the elderly, for example – have more chronic diseases are on many more medicines than ever before in our history; cancer has hit almost every household or family with many people on chemotherapy or another regimen that makes them more susceptible to become ill from food, and new conditions – such as HIV -- have caused weakened immune systems.

Let me first tell you something about the National Consumers League.  We are a consumer advocacy organization that was founded 104 years ago at a time when food was kept cold by ice, and the most popular preservative was salt.  You got your chickens and eggs directly from the farm and most people had their own vegetable gardens or a huckster came to your block with fresh vegetables.  We didn’t live long then – about to the ripe old age of 50, and probably lots more died of foodborne illness than they do today.  Today NCL represents consumers in a number of disciplines – consumer fraud, product safety, financial services, technology and telecommunications, fair labor standards, health care – we testify before Congress and respond to regulatory proposals.  We maintain 4 Web sites, distribute 2 newsletters online and one in hard copy.  We distribute many publications, videos, and there isn’t a day that goes by when one of our staff is on TV, in the newspaper, or on the radio responding to media questions.

We participate in several coalitions and groups – in the food area, we are part of the Safe Food Coalition, serve on the executive boards of the Conference for Food Protection, the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, the Food Safety Training and Education Alliance, the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Nutrition, the Board of Cooperating for Food Safety, and the National Research Council Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

One of the League’s favorite programs is LifeSmarts, where we educate teenagers about how to be savvy consumers now and when they become adults – young people compete on questions about several issues, including food safety – at the state level and then at a national competition.  We just held the nationals – with young people from all over the U. S. in Orlando; the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services coordinates the Florida state program and provided volunteers for this year’s competition, and a Florida 4-H team from Seminole County won the championship.  Minnesota by the way came in second – a team from LeSueur-Henderson High School .

I am telling you about this program because teenagers should be a natural audience for the industry – whether they are on a farm or small town in a rural community or if they are working at a Burger King in Los Angeles – teenagers need to learn about food safety – and learn about and understand new technologies – in growing and processing food – so that they are comfortable with irradiation and other technologies that help make our foods safer.  Young people need to be educated about science-based decision-making, and have confidence in a safe food supply from the grocery store, the local restaurant, or food they prepare themselves.   They are the ones who can embrace the new and teach their parents as they have with other technology.

 I was asked to speak today about the food safety expectations of U. S. consumers, what information they need, and are consumers concerned about the whole food chain or just on the end product.  I will discuss some general consumer attitudes, perceptions of food safety; irradiation; GMOs and biotechnology; animal feed and nutrition; and provide some thoughts on consumer education.

In a recent presentation by Joel Gurin, Executive Vice President of Consumers Union, talking about the consumers’ overall concerns – he mentioned that consumers are facing a time of major uncertainty—they are worried about safety and security, the economy and their personal financial situations.  They have less and less trust in corporations and business interests – Americans are in a strongly hostile mood regarding corporate America . You cannot pick up a paper today or listen to the news without hearing about greed and corruption – unethical business practices, and questionable accounting.  The five major concerns are health care, protection in the information age (ID theft and privacy); product safety and food safety; the environment and sustainable consumption; and getting better customer service.  Almost every one of these issues relates to your industry.  Ensuring food safety came up highest regarding how government can help consumers.  And there is still strong support for the FDA and for the USDA inspection service and our local health departments to protect us at the retail level.

Do consumers think that their food is safe?  Yes, generally.  The most recent Food Marketing Institute Supermarket Trends report released in January indicates that consumer confidence that food in a supermarket is completely or mostly safe is at 79%.  To say it another way, however, one in five people do not think food is that safe.   FMI data show that consumers consider the responsibility for food safety:  26% government organizations; 30% with themselves; 17% retailers and 21% manufacturers – to assure the safety of the food that they purchase. 

How do consumers make choices then, if food might be unsafe? Who can you trust?  Isn’t the government supposed to make sure our food is safe?  Industry?  Don’t they want to assure that we come back to that restaurant or grocery store?  How can they sell unsafe food?  And should I believe everything that I hear on TV or read in the newspaper?  And what about the latest newsletter from my favorite consumer group? 

Earning and keeping public trust is a major challenge facing government, industry and consumer groups.  In the last decade Americans have changed both as citizens and as consumers.  We have become a “harder sell,” and trust must now be earned, not taken for granted.   In the complex reality of science-based approaches using technological solutions to make our food safer, consumers hear one thing from industry, another from some consumer groups, and often confusing, contradictory messages from government. 

Whether we are a businesswoman from San Jose, a construction worker from Arkansas, whether we work for a major restaurant chain or a small grocery store, whether we are a senior citizen from Buffalo or a consumer advocate from Washington, how we makes decisions for ourselves and our families is dictated very much by our prior knowledge and experience of the world.  For most consumers, it is our friends, our family, the people we work with or go to church or synagogue with who most influence our attitudes and knowledge – be it fact or fiction – about everyday products and services – and about quality, safety or harm from foods or dietary supplements we eat.  So where does that leave us?  Is it going to be the last talk show host you heard that determines what you buy?  Or is it your good experience with a grocery store or restaurant that sways your purchasing?

While some of the survey data show that most people consider our food safe, safety and confidence attitudes shift when consumers are asked about biotechnology – GMOs – and about irradiation.  Why is that?  Perhaps, the industry has not helped consumers understand what technology is and what it is not.  Certainly consumers are aware of technological changes in almost all other consumer products and services – and with most – they have been accepted or soundly rejected.  Buying habits and products have changed in the last few decades.  Consumers shifted from records to compact disks.  From typewriters to computers.   Consumers are moving from wire lines to wireless phones.  We are dumping address books and calendars for the latest PDA.  We have embraced electronic commerce, banking online, ATMs to get our money.  We are even considering hybrid cars.  And remember – in the food industry there have been major changes – from canned food to frozen; changes from raw to pasteurized from whole to skim and in between for milk.  And what home is without a microwave today?  Why is it that the use of some technology in agriculture and in food processing – even when it will produce a safer product, help the environment, reduce the use of pesticides is not embraced wholeheartedly? 

 Let’s look at some “technologies” and changes in food that HAVE been accepted by the consumer:   

Earlier I mentioned that the number one concern for American consumers today is health – in addition to worrying how to pay for healthcare and their greater responsibilities in making choices in health, the public is concerned about how diet impacts health and risk for disease, and they are often confused when presented with conflicting reports in the news media. 

Nutrients altered by the food industry – especially fat—have played a part in helping to prevent cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer.  The composition of beef, pork, and poultry products has been altered through genetic selection – selecting animals that have less fat and are more efficient at converting nutrients to lean mass. 

Animal products that have been enriched with different types of fatty acids and fortified with vitamin E are beginning to change the way people eat.  Dietary fats, phytochemicals, including carotenoids, and flavonoids, are found in a variety of plants and have received a lot of attention – soybeans, carrots, flaxseed -- and antioxidants have been identified as having potential properties for reducing the risk of cancer and heart disease.  These are god stories – the ones that consumers embrace.  This is progress in the industry that consumers understand.  But what about things that consumers don’t understand, such as using antibiotics in feed to encourage growth? 

When animals are adequately nourished, their resistance to disease also improves, which reducing the potential for animal pathogens.  Improving animal health through nutrition also decreases the need for drug treatments, which reduces the potential of drug residues and of course, decreases the amount of antibiotic use – a matter of great concern to all consumer groups and health care professionals.  We are all aware that the more antibiotics are used, the more rapidly resistance develops. When such resistance develops, the antibiotic no longer stops bacterial growth, and the antibiotic is no longer capable of treating or curing the disease.

Antibiotics added to livestock feed to counteract the effects of crowded living conditions and poor hygiene can result in antibiotic resistance and the persistent use may result in antibiotic-resistant infections in people.  In addition, NCL and other groups believe that antibiotics should not be used as a livestock feed additive if that antibiotic is used in human medicine.  

Future changes in animal care, modifications in housing design, and improvements in management systems will all impact nutrient requirements.  Food production systems are gradually shifting to larger, more concentrated operations, and this offers new challenges, not only in keeping animals healthy, but in assuring that air emissions are controlled – in consideration of the environment and for the surrounding communities. We applaud the progress toward precision feeding technology and nutrient management plans.  

Irradiation

A technology that just cannot get out of the headlines is irradiation. The majority of consumer groups – and there are exceptions – but the majority -- accept that food irradiation is a useful tool in reducing pathogen contamination of meat and poultry and can contribute to reducing foodborne illness in these and other foods.  It must be emphasized that using a tool such as irradiation however must never replace sanitation practices in the processing of food.

We support clear labeling of irradiated foods.  We are quite concerned that irradiated foods not be labeled with terms such as cold pasteurization or electronic pasteurization.  These terms mean nothing to consumers.  They just confuse and mislead the public.  We should use phrases such as “treated with radiation” or “treated by irradiation.”  Consumers want the truth about irradiation – no masking names – it only makes consumers suspicious that there is something to hide. Conspicuous, easy-to-read labeling is the only way that consumers can make an informed choice about irradiated products and any other products for that matter. 

The question is not whether consumers will accept irradiation.  Consumers want the label so that they can make a choice at the marketplace.  Labeling provides valuable information to those who would seek out irradiated products because they purchase foods for people at increased risk of developing foodborne illnesses – children or nursing-home residents – or because they generally desire for themselves or their families foods that have that extra measure of safety added when processed.  At the same time, clear labeling reaches those who wish to avoid irradiated products, because they prefer fresh, natural, or minimally-processed foods or because they are concerned about environmental and worker-safety problems potentially caused by irradiation or find irradiated foods unappealing for any other reason.  

Numerous studies have demonstrated that consumers support labeling to indicate that a food has been irradiated. In 1999 the Center for Science in the Public Interest and AARP conducted a nationally representative survey of over 1,000 adults to examine consumer attitudes toward irradiation labeling and found an overwhelming support for labeling of foods that have been irradiated (88.6%). 

The recent FMI Trends survey showed that 57% would be interested in irradiation of food.  And as you know, several supermarkets have now put irradiated beef in their meat cases.  They want helpful information – about risks and benefits – about quality of food – about how to handle the food when they get home.  

In an effort to help consumers understand what irradiated food is and is not – the National Consumers League published a brochure – and we have information on our Web site about irradiation.  We feel that the advantages are that it kills or substantially reduces levels of dangerous microorganisms – salmonella, listeria, and campylobacter.  It delays or stops normal ripening and decay processes for a longer shelf life and it can completely sterilize a food making it fit to eat for vulnerable patients and other consumers.  We think it is an important food safety tool – not the cure all – but it provides a safety step as long as the food is clean when it is irradiated. 

There are some people who will never be won over – those who prefer “natural” – those who believe that technology interferes with nature.  And those who don’t want irradiated product no matter what – about 20%.  Another 20% are indifferent.  And 50-60% need information so they can make an informed choice.

Genetically Engineered Food

When the National Consumers League celebrated our 100^th anniversary, we commissioned a major survey of the State of the Consumer – and asked a few questions about “genetically engineered food.”  The results of our survey showed that the majority of adults were willing to eat genetically engineered food along with other foods (51%) and preferred them (11%); others thought that they would avoid them (33%).  About 5% didn’t know.  A number of other studies have been conducted, particularly regarding labeling.  A 2001 ABC News poll said that 93% of Americans say the federal government should require labels that a product has been genetically modified, or bioengineered.  A Rutgers Food Policy Institute study had similar results – 98% said that there should be special labels.  CSPI also commissioned a survey that indicates that whole foods should be labeled.  43% indicated that they would buy foods that were labeled “genetically engineered.”  A MSNBC 2000 survey found that 89% of Americans think the government should require pre-market safety testing.  There are additional surveys on perception of safety – the ABC News poll in June 2001 found that the perception of the people on genetically modified foods is that 35% thought them safe; 52% unsafe and 13% had not opinion. 

Although there are noted exceptions, the National Consumers League believes that if used properly, biotech foods could greatly help farmers, those who work in the fields, consumers and the environment.  They promise increased yields, less use of pesticides, and in some cases better nutrition.  But we also believe that if misused – as has already been the case – there could be great harm.  In order to build consumer confidence, strict rules and increased transparency, monitoring to assure that guidelines are implemented to ensure safety and protect the environment.  Most consumers just want to know – Are they safe?  People with allergic reactions are especially leery.  Consumers also want to know how the crops will affect the environment.  Industry should be candid with consumers about the benefits and the risks of the technology.  Let people know what is already engineered.  Let people know about the safety or any risks of these products.  Consumers need disclosure – they need honesty, they need an increased level of safety to have confidence in genetically modified foods.

NCL, other U. S. consumer groups and EU consumer organizations are interested in a tighter regulatory framework.  Some are calling for comprehensive mandatory premarket safety testing and approval systems and comprehensive mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods, including labeling of derivatives and animal feed. .  In addition, to enable effective consumer choice, it is important to all consumer groups that alternatives to GM be available.  Most also support accurate and rigorous labeling with complete traceability of GMOs throughout the entire production, processing and distribution chain.  

Nutrition and companion animals

A few weeks ago, NCL wrote to FDA Commissioner McClellan that we are concerned a labeling issue – confusing and misleading nutrition and pricing information that consumers encounter when purchasing food for companion animals.  Congressman Waxman has also brought this to the attention of the FDA.  And the Center for Veterinary Medicine has been investigating the feeding directions on dog food labels, some of which have reduced the portion for the “recommended daily serving.”  At least one company has done this claiming a decreased amount by 25%.  We have asked the FDA to investigate but also have suggested that clear nutritional guidelines – such as the Nutrition Facts on foods for human consumption be on companion animal products – to help consumers make information purchases of pet food – this would help them compare prices, compare contents, compare quality of the products they purchase. 

In conclusion, I would like to suggest some consumer education the industry should consider.  First, you should focus the audience.  For example, young people, who may be more inclined to embrace new technology.  They will however scrutinize carefully any information that you provide.  However, it must be science-based and presented with honesty.  Another important audience is those who “eat for health.”  These are consumers who are concerned about their cholesterol level, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and know that some new functional foods or other foods.  Patient groups are also interested in biotechnology and how it can help someone with a particular chronic disease.  In addition, don’t forget that the messenger for most consumers is the media. 

How do you describe science to consumers?  Not the same way you talk to academics.  It should be in consumer-friendly language.  And what about communication – the better half of communication is listening.  Consumers expect honesty; they expect you to be flexible; they expect to know both risk and benefit; and they expect disclosure of all information.  That is how you build confidence

And finally, what are the issues to address today?  Subtherapeutic use of antibiotics; biotechnology and GMOs; foodborne illness and pathogens; dioxin; animal welfare; and concentration.

###