- PDF Version (1.9M) - Print Friendly - Help

Food Focus May 2006

Guest column

What is the safe way to cook a chicken?

It’s a seemingly simple question that creates a complexity of grief for PhDs, celebrity chefs and backyard barbequers.

NZFSA, like other regulatory bodies, industry associations and individual consumers, has its own recommendations.

In April, the US Department of Agriculture, which for decades had recommended that poultry be cooked to an internal temperature of 180oF (85oC) for safe eating, changed its mind.

In light of new research, USDA is now telling consumers and others that 165oF (74oC) is the single, safe minimum internal temperature to kill foodborne pathogens in poultry.

Media accounts reported that the months of commissioned study and testing by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods were not prompted by reports of overcooked white meat but by reported outbreaks of Salmonella bacteria that were traced to partially cooked, frozen poultry products.

Scientific forums

Will NZFSA alter its recommendations? Maybe. The more interesting question is, what is the basis for any health-related recommendation? Who decides? How did they decide? Is everything science-based?

Food safety is complex, so there are bound to be disagreements. There are international bodies such as the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission which provides a forum for scientists to debate and develop recommended limits for exposure to pesticide residues or methylmercury in fish.

Individual countries will often establish advisory committees to provide guidance on testing levels to effectively manage BSE or avian influenza. Industry, local councils, consumer groups – there is no end to various social actors offering advice on what constitutes safe food.

Except that safety is often a highly personal matter – a reflection of an individual’s values, biases and experiences. And yes, as has been well-documented, even scientists make value judgments when determining the safety or risk of a particular food product or process. That helps to explain why there are significant differences of scientific opinion that need to be acknowledged at almost every step of meal preparation. Simple messages are never that simple, and may intentionally amplify consumer concerns.

Public perception

Science is still the best tool available but everyone needs to be honest about the limitations of science. The ability to apply science-based solutions to food safety and other food-related challenges is intricately dependent on issues of public perception, the regulatory environment, fairness, accountability and, most importantly, trust.

Trust, as any parent, spouse or reality show contestant knows, is fragile. Psychologist Paul Slovic of the University of Oregon, a pioneer in research on trust and credibility, has noted that trust is created rather slowly, but can be destroyed in an instant.

As US President Abraham Lincoln recognised over a century ago in a letter to Alexander McClure: “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.”

There are reasons that trust is hard to build and maintain. Experiments have demonstrated that negative or trust-destroying events carry three to four times the psychological weight of positive or trust-building events. Further, sources of bad news tend to be seen as more credible than sources of good news.

Once initiated, distrust takes on a life of its own. Contradictory evidence is simply discarded or shaped to support the initial belief.

Public distrust

Combine these psychological factors with an unprecedented level of public distrust in government and technology, along with the democratic trend toward more public decision-making, and the result is often consumer revolt or a complete loss of credibility.

So trust is important, and food safety issues are rife with uncertainty. Yet, in terms of managing risks, not eating is the biggest risk of all. One way to enhance trust while acknowledging uncertainty is to have fully developed and accessible procedures for developing answers to tough questions.

In my laboratory, the Food Safety Network, we search out credible, current, evidence-based information on food safety and make it accessible to Canadians and the international community.

Sources for food safety information include federal and state regulatory agencies, international organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), peer-reviewed scientific publications, academia, recognized experts in the field, and other respected organisations as appropriate.

Evidence-based

Information provided must be balanced, evidence-based, and referenced. Of course, balanced is a seriously subjective term. Other groups have similar procedures.

There will be lots of disagreement about any specific food safety advice; it’s normal; it’s part of science; but everyone is entitled to a full disclosure of how a particular answer was obtained. At the Food Safety Network we say, you may not agree with our answer, but at least you’ll be able to see how the answer was derived.

Now, what is the proper way to thaw poultry?

• Douglas Powell is scientific director of the Food Safety Network at Kansas State University, www.foodsafetynetwork.ca.