Everyone expects their food to be fresh, tasty, value for money, and, above all, safe to eat. The fresh produce industry has worked hard to build a secure supply chain and, in most cases, fruit and vegetables can be traced right back to where they were grown, with checks made at every step on the way.
But what happens when the system fails and a food scare flares up? And what can the sector do to both prevent and prepare for the worst?
It is almost one year since a fatal outbreak of e.coli hit the US spinach sector last autumn, leaving three dead and 200 ill, and forcing the US fresh produce industry to learn to some stark lessons. Lorna Christie, senior vice-president at the Produce Marketing Association (PMA), recalls the event as one of the worst to hit the industry. “The PMA has its own crisis management plan, but the spinach incident was a different animal because it affected the entire industry,” she says. “One of our first goals after this crisis broke was to help the industry find its voice. We immediately put together a plan of action.”
The US Food and Drug Administration warned consumers not to eat spinach on September 14. The story spread with unprecedented speed, with eight stories posted on the web at 8pm on the day the story broke, rocketing to 8,000 by 11pm and reaching 60,000 the next morning.
The crisis struck a devastating blow to the US fresh produce sector, with spinach sales virtually collapsing overnight, and the rest of the salad bowl taking a hit.
“The most common question was whether spinach was safe to eat, and the answer is yes - I eat it every morning for breakfast and I feed it to my children,” Christie insists.
But the incident cranked up public sensitivity to food scares to unprecedented levels. Some 80 per cent of US consumers knew about the spinach scare after the story broke and, according to Christie, this level of public awareness about a specific food scare is unprecedented.
“Spinach sales had been rising, with proactive campaigns from growers and suppliers highlighting its health benefits, but the food scare hit the sector incredibly hard,” she says.
It is estimated that the incident cost the industry up to $150 million (£74.5m), but Christie says there are some losses that the industry will never be able to put a number on. “The impact on the industry was devastating, but our focus was the impact on the public,” she stresses. “People lost their lives, and our hearts and minds go out to them and their families.
“We will do whatever it takes to reach our goals, but there is no silver bullet in food scares - we need to find a combination of solutions that works.”
The US fresh produce sector has had to work hard to regain consumer trust. “People have a heightened sensitivity to food now, and we are working with the media to raise awareness about how fresh produce is grown,” says Christie. “We have to remember the power of our own story in creating confidence in fresh produce. US consumers see the farmer as the most trusted source of information, above the US department of agriculture and their own personal physician, and we do not use that enough - shoppers want to see the faces behind their product, and hear their stories. We need to start talking about who we are with the pride that I know we have.”
New safety standards approved by the state department of agriculture were launched in July. The Californian food industry, which accounts for 70 per cent of the lettuce and spinach sold in the US, has invested significantly in the agreement, with 99 per cent of the companies packing leafy greens in the state already signed up to the scheme.
The comprehensive new agreement should sharply reduce the chances of a repeat outbreak, and should also serve as a model for regulation throughout the US. A state-certified stamp of approval will show consumers if spinach, lettuce and other greens meet the new standards.
The rules, which have been co-ordinated by a state board, impose stringent standards on irrigation water, prohibit the use of raw manure and require new measures to keep wildlife out of fields.
But critics object to the voluntary component of the industry agreement and favour legislation that would require state inspection of fields and food handlers.
The PMA has provided $2 million (£990,000) of funding towards the creation of the Center for Produce Safety at the University of California Davis (UC Davis), matched by Salinas Valley producer Taylor Farms. The international food-safety initiative, which is still in the planning stage, will fund new studies and ongoing training, and will aim to consolidate existing research on food safety.
PMA president Bryan Silbermann is confident that the project will make a positive impact. “The Center for Produce Safety is a public-private partnership we are creating as a collaborative effort of industry, government, academia and consumer groups to enhance the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables through research, information exchange, and training worldwide,” he says.
“What we want to do is provide the industry with the best science possible for research into the causes and solutions in food-safety issues,” adds Christie.
UK consumers are well protected from the risk of food incidents. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) aims to ensure food safety across the whole food chain, from farm to fork, and provide independent expert advice to consumers. Its core values - putting the consumer first, openness and independence - underpin its mission to protect public health and the interests of consumers in relation to food. This means providing accurate science-based advice and research, analysing risks and emerging trends, working with partners and stakeholders in the food and drink industry and with food law enforcers on issues relating to food safety and nutrition.
With each incident, the FSA takes action guided by the best available scientific evidence to protect consumers and maintain food standards and safety, in proportion to the risk.
The body aims to operate in an “open and transparent way” and offer explanations in “plain English” for its decisions, enabling consumers and stakeholders to see the basis on which they have been made, whilst ensuring judgments are well informed.
A glance at the list of alerts raised by the FSA this year shows that food scares involving fresh produce are far outnumbered by those relating to the meat, fish and dairy industries, but they are not absent altogether.
UK supermarket alerts this year include a recall of watercress supplied by Soleco UK following a salmonella scare in January, and a withdrawal of Florette Lamb’s lettuce and Morrisons own-brand leafy salad bags, both amid concerns of salmonella contamination, in April. This was followed by an FSA warning about fresh basil from Sainsbury’s, Asda and Somerfield in May, and a recall of four types of Morrisons own-brand ready-to-eat salads after routine testing found salmonella contamination.
Fresh produce is one of the safest categories in food but, according to Dom Lane at PR agency Bray Leino, which has dealt with a number of crisis situations, businesses must be prepared for the worst. “The risk factor of food crises in fresh produce is lower than any other food category, and the points of contamination are fewest, but there are still issues that may need to be dealt with,” he insists.
Lane says it is essential for every business to formulate an action plan that can be rolled out in a crisis situation. “Fresh produce businesses are busy. We know that people are up to their eyeballs, and that they are highly skilled and experienced individuals, but it is important that they set aside some time - preferably with someone from outside their business - to carry out a thorough risk analysis,” he says. “It is essential to have a slow, methodical and thorough look at all aspects of the business, and risks outside it, to identify all the ways in which it could all go pear-shaped.
“You have to put a pessimistic hat on and consider the worst, looking at your inputs into the supply chain and if you are not a primary producer, looking at risks involved up the chain.
“This is about taking control of your business, being responsible and forward thinking and, if you do this, the likelihood of an incident happening in the first place will be very low.”
Lane says a clear and well-defined strategy is essential for damage limitation, should the worst happen. “If a situation arises, you must explain to yourself, and then to whoever controls your communication, what is happening in plain English,” he says. “Transparency is key, as it is how you will respond to potential questions.”
Lane recommends setting up a single line of communication so as not to send out confused messages, and he adds that responses should be consistent and limited to the facts. “Avoid speculation or predictions, do not apportion blame, or offer any explanations that are not 100 per cent verifiable, or any information other than what is asked for,” he says. “The first rule of damage limitation is not to dig a hole for yourself.”
The PR agency was approached by an importer of herbs and spices to advise on how it could best manage its implication in the importation of Sudan-1 and Para Red, contaminated and potentially carcinogenic food dyes found in sporadic batches of chilli powder, into the UK food chain.
The company in question had been identified on the FSA website and a product recall process had been instigated. The owner of the business was concerned that inaccurate press coverage could be catastrophic for his business.
Lane knew that the details of the case, if communicated properly, could vindicate the firm, but inaccurate reporting would portray the company as culpable and irresponsible. He set up a specialist hotline, through which all media enquiries were handled by experienced members of the PR team, and gave the importer strategic direction, with briefing documents for the managing director to use when communicating with employees and stakeholders.
“The emphasis was on clear and transparent explanation, accurate but specific factual rendition of circumstances and a clearly delineated statement of opinion from the owner,” says Lane. “The company had acted in good faith and in line with government guidelines and had acted swiftly and unprompted to prevent further contamination.”
It can take longer than may seem reasonable to restore public confidence in a brand or product, Lane warns, but it is not impossible. “In the history of food crises, there are brands that have never recovered properly, but, in other cases, visible solutions to problems have been well covered, and trust has been restored,” he says. “The majority of consumers appreciate and respect honesty and transparency, more than they remember and apportion blame.”
STEP-BY-STEP SCARE GUIDE
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published guidance to help businesses and enforcement authorities prevent and respond better to food scare incidents.
The advice, released in April, is intended to help both the food industry and local authorities when there are concerns about actual or suspected threats to food safety that could require intervention to protect consumers.
The guide has been developed by the Food Incidents Task Force, set up by the agency in the wake of the 2005 Sudan-1 industrial dye incident, to help strengthen controls in the food chain and prevent major food incidents.
The group brought together experts from the food industry, consumer groups and enforcement authorities to identify good practice from previous food incidents and develop guidance for other organisations.
The guidance gives step-by-step advice about preventing food incidents, including how to identify potential hazards, and gives practical advice about effective incident response from notification through to post-incident actions.
A summary version has been developed particularly for small businesses.
Nick Tomlinson, head of the FSA’s chemical safety division, says: “The incidents task force provided a unique opportunity for a range of experts to come together and share their expertise about preventing and handling food incidents.
“The food chain is complex and food incidents are difficult to eliminate altogether, but we hope that providing clear, easy-to-follow information will help food businesses reduce the likelihood of them happening. The guidance also aims to improve the handling of incidents by providing easy-to-follow advice on the steps to take if an incident does occur.”
The FSA says that understanding and anticipating emerging risks is a key element in enhancing the way that regulators, the food industry and other official bodies are able to prevent contamination incidents or react quickly to them if they do occur.
BOOTS MADE FOR SAFETY
The safety of the food supply chain must be monitored to the highest standards and, according to Jonathan Evans at Muddy Boots Software, IT audit systems are the best way forward for the fresh produce sector. “Global supply has become the norm, the consequence of which is that food supply chain safety is now a major concern,” he says. “IT software, if correctly applied and maintained, is exceptionally accurate as a means of traceability and audit management within the fresh produce industry.
“Consumers simply expect that the retail or manufacturing brand has got it sorted - they look to retailers as watchdogs on their own supply chains, and this emphasises the importance of auditing software as a means of brand protection for retailers today,” he adds.
Maintaining food safety in a global supply chain poses constant challenges and, according to Evans, UK growers, suppliers and retailers need auditing programmes they can trust. “When you factor in scale, large numbers of small growers, diversity of geography, cultures, languages and an increasing trend for fresh produce to be packed at source, a major issue presents itself,” he says. “But the use of auditing software makes this issue more manageable, as a consistent measure is introduced, against which risks can be identified and corrective actions can be monitored.”
Muddy Boots developed Quickfire audit management software five years ago in response to the need for improved scrutiny in the food supply chain.
The software enables produce to be traced using a mobile device that captures audit data, which is then uploaded into a database. The programme can detect where and when problems occurred, before then generating corrective actions.
Evans says complete transparency in the fresh produce network is key to building confidence between the producer and retailer, and adds this can be achieved with the use of specialist software. “Audits performed using Quickfire are quality assessments that work to detect real risk,” he says. “When risks are identified, whether they are low- or high-level in category, corrective actions will be raised and, if protocol is followed, the issue will subsequently be resolved.”
This will reassure retailers that their suppliers are safe and will not damage their brand because of lapses in food safety, and save time for suppliers by halving the conventional pen-and-paper audit process.
“IT within the fresh produce industry is not a nice to have, it is a must have,” says Jeremy Pile, technical director at Muddy Boots. “We have the ability to recognise and evaluate the opportunities offered by emerging technologies; combine this with our knowledge of changing industry requirements, and the result is auditing software, which the industry cannot afford to ignore.”
No comments yet