Food safety programs--an improved model for media relations.

"If it bleeds, it leads." This journalistic adage applies not only to homicides and car wrecks, but also to reporting about food safety programs. It is common to see in magazines or television shows investigative reports critiquing food safety programs. Such reports can be beneficial by illustrating areas of needed improvement. Often, however, the reports--perhaps because the journalists lack understanding of public health or perhaps because it is in the very nature of journalism to produce a "juicy story"--lead the reader or viewer to false conclusions about the effectiveness of the programs.

The purpose of this article is to provide a new model that will allow the inspection programs of environmental health agencies to give journalists and the public at large a "lens" through which food safety data can be understood, so that they can draw correct conclusions. This model has three components: detailed food facility inspection reports; education of media outlets; and building support among political representatives and elected officials.

The foundation of the model is clear and comprehensive inspection reports. The written report is the sole document detailing the findings of the inspection. Many states now require that health agencies post these reports online or require that facilities make inspection reports available for public view. For these reasons, it is imperative that a report accurately describe both the codified violation and its risk to human health. Consider the following two scenarios: In the first, a package of uncooked ground beef thaws on a counter for four hours and has a temperature of 51[degrees]F. In the second scenario, a package of uncooked ground beef thaws on a counter for two hours and has a temperature of 40[degrees]F. Both are examples of improper thawing technique, a violation of most food codes.

The first example poses an imminent threat to human health if left unchecked and should be clearly marked as a critical violation on the inspection report. The second situation, however, can easily be corrected if the ground beef is immediately placed under refrigeration, so it should be marked as a minor violation. Both violations should be accompanied by a list of the steps taken to remedy the violation. The first violation could be written up in the following manner:

    A package of ground beef was observed thawing on a countertop with a
  surface temperature of 51[degrees]F. The chef stated that he had
  removed the meat from the freezer and placed it on the counter four
  hours ago. This is a critical violation of proper thawing technique.
  Because the temperature of the meat is within the hazardous range and
  poses an imminent threat to human health, the facility operator
  voluntarily destroyed the ground beef. I then reviewed proper thawing
  technique with the facility personnel.

Similarly, the second violation might be described as follows:

    A package of ground beef was observed thawing on a countertop with a
  surface temperature of 40[degrees]F. The chef stated that he had
  removed the meat from the freezer and placed it on the counter two
  hours ago. This is a violation of proper thawing technique. Because
  the temperature was still within the safe range and the violation did
  not pose an immediate threat to human health, I allowed the chef to
  place the item in a refrigerator at 40[degrees]F. I then reviewed
  proper thawing technique with facility personnel.

In both examples, violations are identified and clearly differentiated on the basis of the associated risk to human health. The action taken to correct the violation also is clearly described.

This approach minimizes the sensationalistic appeal of the violations to journalists and to the interested public.

The second component of this model requires health agencies to educate media personnel toward greater understanding of public health principles. Journalists routinely obtain the number of foodborne-illness complaints received during a specified time period from health agencies. Reporters often fail to differentiate between reported illnesses and confirmed illnesses. The news story then leads the reader or viewer to conclude that the number of reported illnesses proves a failure in the food safety surveillance program. It is the obligation of environmental health professionals to provide news media representatives with a proper lens through which to view these data by educating them on public health principles.

Prior to speaking to the media regarding your food facility inspection program, I recommend that you give the reporter a "fact sheet" that includes the following information:

* the definition of a foodborne illness;

* the difference between a "reported illness" and a "confirmed illness";

* the information needed to confirm an illness (e.g., corroboration of food samples and biological samples, two or more affected individuals unrelated to one another);

* a statement that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 81 percent of all foodborne illnesses are attributable to "unknown agents (CDC, 2002)"; and

* a statement that many reporting parties fail to see a physician during the onset of symptoms, and that even when a physician is consulted, a general diagnosis of "gastroenteritis" is often made without collection of biological samples to determine the causative microbe.

Health agencies also should stress to the public, through media outlets, the importance of prompt reporting of foodborne illnesses to a physician and to the health agency to improve the chances of determining the origin of the illness.

Consider the following example: Assume that a news report states that a local health agency received 500 alleged foodborne-illness complaints in one year, of which 50 were confirmed. To the unaware public, this number may seem astounding. According to CDC estimates, however, 81 percent, or 365 of those unconfirmed cases cannot be attributed to a specific causative agent. Some of the cases may have originated from a food facility. Many, however, may have originated in the home of the afflicted party or from an unrelated water supply. With this knowledge, a much different picture emerges. This framework will lead the reporter and the public to the correct conclusion that the risk of contracting a foodborne illness from a food facility is rather low, a positive reflection on the health agency's food safety surveillance program. The effectiveness of the program is high-lighted, given the number of food facilities within the jurisdiction of an agency and the number of meals served per year.

The final component of this approach involves building the necessary support among the elected officials and decision makers to whom we as environmental health professionals answer. Investigative reports often claim that the same violation has appeared on a facility's reports for several years. The reluctance to force an operator to correct a violation may stem from resistance that the enforcement agency receives from the elected official in whose district the food facility is located. One solution to this problem is for enforcement agencies to shorten the time inspection reports are retained, since the ownership and management of food facilities frequently changes. Old inspection reports may not reflect the current operation.

It also is critically important for managers of inspection programs to ensure early involvement of elected officials in the enforcement process. They must clearly articulate the public health threat posed by allowing the violation to continue, along with the proactive steps the enforcement agency has taken to assist the operator in correcting the violation. For example, many health agencies provide free or low-cost food safety classes to operators in order to remedy unsafe food-handling practices. By taking these steps, the enforcement agency provides authority figures with a foundation upon which to stand so that they can support the agency during the enforcement process.

Environmental health professionals should not mislead journalists. If a story accurately identifies failures in our programs, it is our obligation to correct those failures immediately. By taking a new approach that incorporates clearer food facility inspection reports, education of media outlets, and building of support among political and elected officials, environmental health professionals will provide reporters and the public with a powerful lens through which they can accurately interpret findings and reach correct conclusions about your food safety surveillance program.

Reference

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Preliminary FoodNet data on the incidence of foodborne illnesses--Selected sites, United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 49(10), 201-205.

Corresponding Author: Matthew R. Fore is a registered environmental health specialist with the San Benito County Health Department in California. E-mail: [e-mail].

Matthew R. Fore, R.E.H.S.