What is the first thought that comes to mind when you hear the words ‘Food Safety’? For me, in its most primitive form, ‘food safe’ simply refers to the status of stuff I can eat which won’t make me sick or dead. But to be more specific, my personal version of ‘food safe’ refers to the status of stuff I can eat which won’t make me sick or dead within a timeframe to my liking. This stuff-I-can-eat is mutually exclusive of whether it is actually classified as food or not. For example, ‘food safe’ can be used to describe items that are ingestible, regardless of their level of foodness, be it a plastic, ingredient, chemical or actual food/beverage.
In my years working within the food industry, I’ve found what it really comes down to is this: something that is said to be ‘Food Safe’ refers to food that is safe to eat, according to the person growing, making or cooking it.
What does this mean for us, the consumer?
Tune into any news establishment and you will find many variations on the definition of a safe food. One reason for confusion is because the definition of ‘food safe’ can vary according to A) location in the supply chain, B) physiology of the person eating it and C) a person’s individual value system.
The Food Supply Chain
Each location along the food chain is associated with different food safety risks. In order to maintain food safety, regulations exist that are intended to mitigate the risk.
A potato can be considered food safe if no harmful pesticides were used in its growing. That potato can then be considered not food safe if, after harvest, it falls into a contaminated puddle of water. But that same potato can again be food safe if washed in a solution prior to shipping. This is an example of a potato happily bouncing along the food supply chain on its way to a plate.
From farm-to-table, a variety of handoffs occur but the food safety regulations in place have the same goals: make sure nothing bad is growing in or on the food (biological contaminants) and make sure nothing bad is floating in or within the food (physical contaminants).
Physiology
Frequently, these people undergo endoscopic surgeries due to severe structural damages. order cialis check it right here now generic cialis online It also helps in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Generally these medicines mainly dexamfetamine and methylphenidate, are actually therapeutic stimulant medicines. online discount cialis Many individuals thought that it must be female viagra buy shameful once they will lay it open to anyone. Part B of a safe food has to do with physiology. Allergens are researched ingredients that can cause physical reactions in some individuals. In addition to biological and physical contaminants, separate regulations are in place to safeguard people from eating food for which they may be allergic. These regulations are under the mechanism of product labeling.
For example, potato salad containing hazelnuts must contain the ingredient ‘hazelnuts’ on the product label because nuts are a known food that can cause an allergic reaction and is classified as such. The consumer can then check the label and make a decision on whether to purchase or not.
Values
Food safety metrics associated with the specific location along the food chain and declaring the allergens are relatively straight forward in comparison to the third area of the food safety prism: the factor associated with a person’s value system. This could include health lifestyle choices of vegan and organic foods, or humanitarian choices such as supporting cage-free raised animals, fair trade compensation practices or technological uses such as existing, new or unproven technologies like GMOs or the BPA used in food packaging.
This value based component of food safety varies so widely among individuals that a clear definition is neither feasible nor appropriate. Value systems regarding food safety are about personal choice — with a caveat, because the argument could be made that this choice is among a set of personal preferences, unknowns and the scientifically unproven. (Is it really your choice if you don’t have all the data?)
What does this ambiguity of a personal value system mean for the topic of Food Safety?
In matters of food safety in commercially produced food, the average consumer has little, if any, control over the steps in the supply chain, more control over the physiology factor and theoretically complete control over their value system. By definition, a choice based value is a personal choice and not necessarily influenced by established controls in the food supply chain or even physiology.
In absence of a well-established conclusion, when the supply chain controls or physiology data is questioned, the value system component immediately takes over. In the example of food safety regarding GMOs, it is currently the case that genetically modified organisms do not have widely accepted research to disprove or prove the level of safety for human consumption. In addition, the public has made it clear taking away choice by not labeling GMOs is not ‘the right thing to do’. Because GMOs are currently a value based proposition, the research, protocols and government guidelines already in place to address food safety don’t necessarily apply in the affected consumer decisions.
Prop 37 is on the ballot in California for a reason. Current scientific norms are in question and a change is imminent; this next personal value within the food system, GMOs, is on the cusp of a phase change. Just as a phase change of matter (gas to liquid, liquid to solid, etc) is never without thermodynamic turbulence or chaos, neither is a switch in values. The public debate over GMOs, in its entirety, is more vocal than one might expect for a historically niche topic. Why? Because GMO labeling in the US indeed appears ripe and ready to make that full-on conversion and phase change from a personal value proposition to an executable enforceable law. It’s just the beginning. Hang on for the ride.
About Pack Systems
Speak Your Mind