The International Association of Food Protection (IAFP) held its annual meeting July 8-11, 2018, at the Salt Palace Convention Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. The event is the world’s largest food safety conference. The IAFP meeting is where food safety professionals meet to discuss pathogens in food and ways to prevent and respond to the problems those pathogens cause.
The meeting is an incubator for the one-size-fits-all food safety laws that make it more difficult for small farmers and artisan food producers to make a living. Most of the crowd at the meeting does not distinguish between the industrial food system and the local food system. The regulations the conference sets in motion are geared for industrial food production and distribution and should apply to all food production and distribution in the eyes of the majority of attendees.
Food safety is a growth industry. Globalization and deteriorating quality in the industrial food system are drivers. Over 3,500 attended this year’s meeting. The FDA and USDA both sent dozens of personnel to Salt Lake City. State regulatory agencies, academia (students and faculty) and big business were all well represented at this year’s meeting. Cargill, Merck Animal Health, Smithfield, Kroger, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Walmart were all sponsors of the event.
Food safety is about the prevention of or response to cases of acute illness; there was little mention at the meeting about nutritious or nutrient-dense food and its role in the prevention of chronic disease.
A topic those at the meeting frequently discussed was the complexity of long supply chains starting with the manufacturers of ingredients used by the food producer and continuing through various phases of distribution leading to the purchase of the food by the final consumer. The talk was about difficulties in traceability and ensuring safe food along the supply chain. An antidote to this problem would be to facilitate the local production and distribution of food with its short, direct supply chain, and high level of traceability but that was a solution that was seldom, if at all, brought up at the meeting.
Presentations at the meeting included talks on recent outbreaks, developments in testing for pathogens, and various food safety processes such as HACCP. At the same time the presentations are taking place, there is a trade show where vendors showcase, among other things, the latest products for testing and sanitation measures. Also present in the same location as the trade show are posters (written summaries) of studies related to food safety that are displayed for viewing by meeting attendees. Individuals who worked on the studies are present to answer questions.
Some takeaways from the meeting:
• The FDA’s longtime plan to extend the aging requirement for raw cheese from 60 days to 90 days is alive and well. Part of the evidence for the latest push on this 90-day requirement is an FDA study on how raw gouda cheese inoculated with listeria still contained listeria after 90 days. The FDA scientists who spoke on the study at the meeting acknowledged that the raw milk used in the experiment was intended for pasteurization not direct consumption–a continuation of the agency’s refusal to recognize that raw milk for the pasteurizer and raw milk for the consumer are two different products. Two food safety professionals contacted at the meeting said privately that listeria was a bigger health threat in pasteurized cheese than it was in raw cheese. Regardless, those at the meeting overwhelmingly favor the “kill step” of pasteurization for all dairy products and for other foods.
• A high-ranking USDA official disclosed that the Office of Investigation, Enforcement and Audit (OIEA), a division of the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), has undertaken an initiative to increase inspections of small and very small plants (e.g., slaughterhouses and processing facilities); there is evidence that this initiative includes inspecting small food buyers clubs selling meat to their members. The question is why? As of 2016 there were only 150 OIEA inspectors in the whole country. Few, if any, food safety problems have been attributed to small and very small plants much less to small private food buyers clubs. Wouldn’t it be a more productive use of resources to have the OIEA personnel increase oversight for imported meat and large USDA facilities slaughtering 300-400 cattle an hour—where there are many more food safety problems?
• A high-ranking FDA official spoke about the proposed merger of food regulation between the USDA and FDA with the former taking over all food regulation. The official said it could be a long process but did not dismiss the merger. The merger would likely be an improvement over the current situation; FDA policies on positive bacteria test results are stricter than either the USDA or European Union countries and lead to more cases of quality, safe food winding up in a landfill.
• One of the featured speakers at the meeting supported the universal adoption of the FDA Food Code, a burdensome regulatory scheme whose cost of compliance is difficult to afford for many small farmers and local artisans producing nutrient-dense food. The late Sue Wallis, the legislator who initially introduced the Wyoming Food Freedom Act, indicated that the main reason she introduced the legislation was to get local food producers selling direct-to-consumers as far away from the requirements of the Food Code as possible. Since 2015 four states—Wyoming, North Dakota, Utah and Maine—have passed food freedom legislation allowing for the unregulated sale of food direct to consumers. As far as is known not a single foodborne illness outbreak has been attributed to a producer operating under these laws in any of the four states.
• Bill Marler, regarded by many as the leading foodborne illness personal injury lawyer in the country, acknowledged that in his 25 years of experience he could not recall having a single client sickened by food purchased at a farmers market.
• There was lots of discussion at the meeting about the recent outbreak attributed to the consumption of romaine lettuce where 5 people died and over 200 became ill. It turns out that the plant which processed the lettuce was subject to the requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Excessive regulation from FSMA doesn’t necessarily mean greater food safety but can mean a decline in food safety with small and midsize producers going out of business due to being unable to afford the cost of compliance.
• Out of 50 states, 46 have signed cooperative agreements with the FDA, receiving federal grant money in return for carrying out inspections to enforce FSMA’s federal produce safety. An attendee at the conference from a state public health department related how her department ran out of the federal money in carrying out a cooperative agreement with the FDA and had to tap into a state general fund to get more money to finish carrying out the agreement. This is not uncommon. State agencies signing cooperative agreements with FDA should have a clause in the agreement that they do not have to carry out any further duties under it if the federal money runs out.
• Most of the presentations and posters at the meeting had to do with industrial food but there were at least a couple exceptions that were favorable to local food. A USDA scientist did a presentation on pastured poultry reporting among other things that poultry fed a soy-free diet had substantially less campylobacter in their systems. There was a poster on the quality of raw milk for retail sale in Maine reporting on the low incidence of illness attributed to raw milk consumption in that state.
• The atmosphere at the meeting was friendly, a good one for engaging attendees on why locally-produced food should not be regulated the same way as industrial food. Most of those attending are trained to think that there is only one food system. One individual who worked on a poster supporting more regulation of cottage food producers was asked if she was aware of any cases of foodborne illness attributed to the consumption of cottage foods. She said no but then added that it was because cottage foods weren’t traceable. In general, there are hardly any foods that are more traceable than cottage foods.
Most cases of foodborne illness are caused by industrial food; this is true even when factoring in the market share industrial food has compared to local food. Unregulated local food producers have plenty of incentive to produce safe food: their families consume the same food they are selling, one recall or one case of foodborne illness can put them out of business. Food safety regulators like dealing with short supply chains and a high degree of traceability; local food producers—regulated or no—satisfy both of these parameters.
When you also factor in the amount of chronic illness the local food and industrial food systems are responsible for, there is no question the local food system is responsible for fewer cases of chronic illness even when the market share of the two systems is accounted for. Take a survey on the demand those who obtain a majority of their food from the local system make for services on the medical system versus those who obtain a majority of their food from the industrial system. Policymakers should take both acute and chronic illness into consideration when crafting food regulations and legislation. The more local food producers there are the less demand there will be on the medical system for services; food freedom laws lead to more local producers.
The IAFP meeting is a place where ideas for food safety legislation are first introduced. It can also be the place where the effort begins to convince regulators that there are two food systems and that one-size-fits-all food safety regulation doesn’t work.
Food safety professionals have done a great job improving safety in areas of the industrial food system; often when dealing with multiple producers/distributors and multiple countries in an investigation—thankless work. Laws and policies contributing to an increase in local food production would make their jobs easier.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Fall 2018.🖨️ Print post
Chef-doctor Jemichel says
Thank you Pete! (Glad you survived the meeting! ; ~ )
Readers here will more than likely understand the orientation of the IAFP from your assessment that: “Most of the crowd at the meeting does not distinguish between the industrial food system and the local food system. The regulations the conference sets in motion are geared for industrial food production …” The organization began as the “International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors”. Just in case anyone has any doubts about the “orientation” I offer the following quotes from their website and from their published history:
(Website) History –
On October 16, 1911, 35 men from Australia, Canada and the United States held the first International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(Website) Time Line:
January 1, 1910
New York Requires Pasteurization of Milk
“As cities began to industrialize, milk production and distribution became more unsanitary. This was the cause of many milkborne diseases, which were commonly fatal. Unsanitary milk caused illnesses such as typhoid fever, scarlet fever, and diphtheria. In 1910, the New York City Board of Health issued an order requiring the pasteurization of milk in hopes of reducing pathogens and diseases in milk. Other states followed throughout the next decade.”
Comment: The lion’s share of truth is missing from this “history” as to what “milk” this refers to and how it relates to industrialization in the cities. However that history is covered in “Raw Milk: The Whole Truth” DVD that I produced featuring Mark McAfee and Dale Jacobson, DC.
October 16, 1911
First Annual Meeting –
Thirty-five men from Australia, Canada, and the U.S. sought the need to improve the quality of milk production and as a result created the International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors. Milwaukee, Wisconsin was the site of the first Association meeting on October 16, 1911.
(Note: One man came from Canada and one man from Australia.)
“When the 1921 Meeting was held in New York City, that city was in the midst of a strike by the milk deliverymen. Nevertheless, the Annual Meetings continued to emphasize the healthfulness of dairy products, their importance as foods for adults as well as for children and infants, and the need for laws providing for pasteurization of all milk and cream unless it was known to be from a certifiably safe source.”:
Comment: Any real history of milk can’t completely deny the fact of the certified raw milk that was produced and also used in the Mayo Clinic to support the recovery of individuals sickened by the swill.
“The growing importance of the new science of nutrition was obvious by the early 1930s, when several talks on the nutritive value of milk appeared on the program at the Annual Meetings. Raw milk was compared to pasteurized milk from the point of view of nutritional differences, …” p 12
Comment: A more complete report could include a summary of those “talks” however I don’t know whether they are accessible.
“Meeting activity for 2009 kicked off in February with the second IAFP Timely Topics Symposium, ‘Raw Milk Consumption: An Emerging Public Health Threat,’ held again in Arlington, Virginia.” p. 55.
Comment: Another item that probably deserves a closed look – however I can’t help but suspect that this reference probably indicates that the organization was following the agendas of the FDA, CDC, etc.
“In 1923, Leslie C. Frank, U.S. Public Health Service, asserted that the fundamental idea of certified milk was wrong, and that all milk, including certified, should be pasteurized.” p. 69
Comment: Add the Public Health Service to the “agenda” list.