The Alarming Predicament Affecting 48 Million Americans: A Matter of Concern

Martin Wiedmann, the Gellert Family Professor of Food Safety at Cornell University, is a highly accomplished expert in the field. With a veterinary degree and doctorate in veterinary medicine from the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich, as well as a PhD in food science from Cornell, he has authored more than 450 peer-reviewed papers. Wiedmann's primary focus is on farm-to-table microbial food quality and food safety. The opinions expressed in this article are his own. For more insightful perspectives, visit CNN's opinion section. In the United States, it may feel like foodborne disease outbreaks are continuous and pervasive, affecting a wide range of food products. In 2023, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) investigated multistate foodborne disease outbreaks involving various foods such as peaches, nectarines, plums, ice cream, and leafy greens - all tied to outbreaks of listeria monocytogenes. Additionally, cantaloupes, onions, ground beef, and flour were linked to salmonella outbreaks.

Martin Wiedmann

Earlier in the year, commercially produced cookie dough was linked to a salmonella outbreak resulting in 26 reported illnesses. This serves as a reminder to be cautious about baking instructions before the holidays, as uncooked eggs or raw flour in the dough may contain bacteria like salmonella and E. coli. Additionally, Quaker Oats announced a recall of granola bars and other products due to salmonella, with no confirmed reports of illness related to the recalled products so far.

Despite the attention-grabbing national foodborne disease outbreaks, there are also smaller, localized outbreaks that affect a limited number of individuals. According to the CDC, studies suggest that approximately 48 million people in the US fall ill due to foodborne illnesses each year. This raises the question of why a developed country like the US struggles to eradicate these problems.

Food safety is a complex and multifaceted issue, often referred to as a "wicked problem" due to its intricate nature and involvement of numerous stakeholders. It is not simply a problem to be solved, but rather one that must be carefully managed.

The challenges of ensuring food safety in the US are attributed to the wide diversity of the food supply and the potential for contamination and foodborne illness to occur, despite rigorous precautions. Factors such as the nature of raw materials, and the difficulties in mitigating food safety risks across various agricultural environments, processing plants, retailers, restaurants and home kitchens contribute to the complexity of the issue.

The scale of the food industry is another factor to consider. With approximately 330 million Americans eating an average of three meals a day, over 350 billion food servings are consumed each year. This requires a significant amount of food production, such as the annual raising of 10 billion chickens and the consumption of 6.2 billion pounds of tomatoes in the US. These statistics highlight the impracticality of relying solely on food testing for a safer food supply.

Not only is it unfeasible to test such a large quantity of food, but food testing for microbes is also considered "destructive testing," meaning that once the food is tested, it can no longer be consumed. Additionally, testing one tomato from a box of 200 does not guarantee that the remaining 199 tomatoes are free of salmonella, even if the tested tomato is negative.

Internationally, approximately 600 million cases of foodborne illnesses occur each year, leading to 420,000 deaths, highlighting the fact that food safety is a global concern. Despite efforts, it is clear that achieving complete safety in food consumption is unlikely. This is similar to other daily activities such as driving, which also carry inherent risks. In 2021, over 40,000 people died in vehicular accidents in the US, a stark contrast to the approximately 3,000 annual deaths from foodborne illnesses. However, both eating and driving are essential parts of life for many Americans.

Of course, we should not simply accept the current situation, but we must approach food safety with the same risk-based mindset that we use for other everyday activities.

Silver fork in a plate of mixed salad

H_Ko/Adobe Stock

Opinion: The Potential Risks of Eating Certain Salads

This risk-based approach applies to both individuals and the federal government. As consumers, we have to weigh the risks we are willing to take. For example, would I eat a slightly undercooked burger that a host serves me at a backyard barbecue (a decision I have had to make several times)? Sometimes I do, but more often I will not. Will I drive on a curvy mountain road in a snowstorm at night? Occasionally, but more often I will not (even though I would happily drive on that road during the day in the summer - risk is contextual, after all).

Improved access to reliable food safety information and education is essential for empowering individuals to make informed decisions when it comes to their food choices. A risk-based regulatory approach could involve setting more stringent rules for high-risk foods and allowing nominal levels of pathogens in low-risk foods without requiring recalls. This approach, as seen in Canada, permits higher levels of listeria monocytogenes in certain foods while imposing stricter limits on high-risk foods. Additionally, government agencies could consider testing high-risk foods more frequently than lower-risk foods. However, implementing risk-based approaches at a broader level raises questions about limiting the sales and distribution of high-risk products, adjusting food safety regulations for smaller companies, and defining where the boundaries lie.

One challenge of all of this is that science can only provide partial assistance. Science can assist us in estimating the risk related to different foods and production processes, as well as the risk related to different individuals at various stages of their lives. For instance, a 21-year-old has a significantly lower risk of contracting foodborne illness than an immunocompromised 80-year-old person. However, science cannot determine what level of risk is "appropriate" - that is a personal or societal decision.

Salmonella enterica bacteria become more virulent and therefore better at causing disease in the micrograity environment of space.

Courtesy of CDC.

video

Salmonella 101: What you need to know

The US Healthy People 2030 framework provides guidelines for determining acceptable levels of risk, with specific public health goals in place, such as reducing human salmonella infections by 25% by 2030. However, in previous versions of this framework, the consequences of not meeting these goals were not clear. It is important to establish clear responsibilities and action plans to achieve the outlined public health goals in the Healthy People 2030 framework, with elected officials and government agencies responsible for communicating and implementing these goals. There must be consequences if these goals are not met.

Consumers and regulators need to recognize that absolute risk elimination is not possible, and efforts to achieve this may do more harm than good. A one-size-fits-all, non-risk-based approach poses several problems, including reducing the affordability and availability of certain healthy foods and directing resources towards less effective food safety measures. It is important to consider the "opportunity cost" of focusing on testing rather than prevention. Requiring recalls of any food that tests positive for a pathogen, regardless of the actual risk, may be counterproductive. For example, a chocolate bar contaminated with salmonella is far less likely to cause illness compared to contaminated raw chicken that will eventually be cooked, significantly reducing the risk.

Sign up for our complimentary weekly newsletter

Sign up for CNN Opinions newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

The status quo is not acceptable and we must strive for better food safety. Achieving this requires coordinated, science-based efforts involving all parties responsible for food production and distribution. It calls for continuous improvement and a realistic approach that acknowledges the impossibility of zero risk. While simple solutions like increased testing may sound appealing, they are often ineffective.