16.7: Consumer Anxiety

Scientists know how to make food safer, but a big hurdle is that the public sees hazards very differently than the experts. A disproportionate amount of our food-safety budget has been spent on concerns about food additives and residues of crop pesticides, though experts tell us that these are at safe levels and that their benefits far exceed their risks. Allocation of resources on the basis of perceived risks instead of actual risks isn’t cost-effective.

Life’s hazards can’t be reduced to zero. We call things safe based on their relative risk. We say that driving slowly at 10 AM in good weather on a quiet street is safe, but it’s still possible that something bad can happen. Relative to other driving situations, the risk of harm is small. And we accept a higher risk in certain situations—we drive to work even when traffic is heavy and in bad weather. But emotions often override logic.

Fear of cancer hampers implementation of some very effective food-safety measures. Irradiation of foods can do much to improve safety, by reducing such disease-causing microbes as Salmonella, Shigella, and E. coliO157:H7.Irradiation also can increase shelf life. For strawberries, it staves off mold and preserves freshness, giving the grocer more time to sell them (making them more affordable), and giving us more time to eat them before they spoil.

The word irradiation stirs up fears of cancer, and opponents argue, for instance, that it can cause carcinogens benzene and formaldehyde to form in food. However, the amounts are minuscule, relative to amounts found naturally. The benzene found naturally in a single egg is more than 100-fold higher than in an irradiated steak; the formaldehyde found naturally in a single apple is more than that made by irradiating a food. Dose matters.*

Another worry is radiation accidents from the machines. We require strong safeguards, just as we do for machines used to treat cancer by radiation or to take X-rays. Another fear is that irradiating a food makes it radioactive. This isn’t so, just as you don’t become radioactive when you get an X-ray.

Most of these hurdles can be overcome by an informed public. Those in the meat industry know that meat would be safer if irradiated, but are reluctant to do so because they fear losing sales when consumers see this noted on the label.

A real concern about irradiating foods is that it may make consumers complacent. Allowable levels of irradiation kill most, but not all, of the disease- causing microbes. The few that remain can grow to toxic amounts if the food is handled carelessly or prepared improperly.

Some people fear biotech foods—foods that “had their genes tampered with.” However, most of what we already eat have had their genes tampered with by traditional crossbreeding. In this sense, biotech foods can be safer, since the “gene tampering” is more precise and predictable (Chap. 10).

Fear of biotech extends to worrying about the safety of milk from cows given BGH (bovine growth hormone, also known as BST/bovine somatotropin). The injected hormone is identical to that made by cows (its recipe is the cow’s gene itself), and is used to increase milk production. It doesn’t raise the hormone level in the milk or otherwise change its composition; milk from BGH-injected cows is identical to milk from cows not given BGH.

Of other concerns, ask about relative risk, e.g., cows giving more milk may have a slightly higher risk of mastitis (inflammation of the udder), but the increase is less than the normal variation in mastitis rates between uninjected cows from different dairies. Good farmers aren’t going to do anything that jeopardizes the health of their animals. There are other issues, such as BGH’s economic impact on small dairy farms, but these shouldn’t be confused with safety issues.

Much consumer anxiety and confusion stems from the fact that we like sharp lines between good and bad, vitamins and drugs, natural and unnatural, nutrients and poisons, but the lines are fuzzy. Nicotine is a natural plant substance that is a highly addictive drug. It’s also a pesticide (Black Leaf 40 garden spray is 40% nicotine sulfate). It’s used as medication in smoking cessation programs and in alleviating ulcerative colitis. It’s also being studied for use in treating Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. Nicotine is a chemical, a natural substance, an addictive drug, a pesticide, and a useful medication.

It’s important to assess relative risks and take best advantage of what food science has to offer. For example, as discussed in Chapter 10, the Innate™ potato is genetically modified to produce less acrylamide (a possible carcinogen) when deep-fried. Though this potato would make french fries healthier, McDonald’s announced it will not use this potato, in response to anti-GMO voices.

If a natural carcinogen or a common allergen exists in high concentration in a plant, we might want to use genetic engineering to remove the plant’s ability to make the offending substance— or decide against eating the plant. Irradiating produce to kill microbes can lessen the need for post harvest pesticides. We need to balance one worry against another.

Most of us aren’t familiar with what goes on before food reaches a grocery store or fast-food counter. We take our bountiful food supply and its relatively low cost for granted. At home, we routinely discard food when it spoils, but don’t think about how much is lost by such natural processes on the farm, or between farm and table. Crop loss, shorter shelf life, etc., mean higher prices. People buy fewer fruits and vegetables when the price is high and/or they worry about getting cancer from residual pesticides (though the risk of cancer can go up from not eating enough fruits and vegetables).

We sometimes need to be reminded that we and food science share the same goals: less need for fertilizers and pesticides, foods that stay fresh from farm to table, more nutritious and tastier foods at an affordable price, and a safer food supply.

^{*A scare widely circulated online claimed that the methanol from aspartame (NutraSweet) breakdown causes multiple sclerosis and other maladies. Aspartame breaks down to 2 amino acids and methanol during normal digestion (Chap. 6). Methanol is toxic in large doses, but the amount of methanol from aspartame-sweetened soft drinks is no more than that found naturally in grape or tomato juice. Dose matters.}