HSDW conversation with Marion Nestle
be doing that just fine on our own as witnessed by the episodes in the last year or so with spinach, peanut butter, and pet food. In my view, all of these happened because the producers were not following standard food safety procedures at all, or did so with inadequate diligence.
HSDW: How real or likely is a terrorist attempt to use the food supply chain to inflict harm on Americans?
Nestle: I think there are better ways to do mischief, but it is certainly possible. I am much more worried about normal, run-of-the-mill bacterial contamination. We do not have farm-to-table food safety procedures in place for a single food in this country. The FDA tried to implement such a plan for shell eggs a few years ago, but got nowhere. If we had such procedures in place, it would be much more difficult for terrorists or mischief-makers to cause harm because measures would be in place to prevent such things from happening.
HSDW: Where do you see the line between government and private industry? Should the government have the right for a mandatory recall of food stuff?
Nestle: Of course it should. The job of industry is to make money. The job of government is to balance industry’s interests against those of public interest. The inability of the USDA and FDA to make decisions that are clearly in the public interest is unbalanced as well as indefensible.
HSDW: More generally, free-market advocates contend that the market corrects itself: A company selling contaminated food would soon go out of business.
Nestle: We have plenty of experience to know that just doesn’t happen.
HSDW: They argue that the alternative remedy to contaminated food — heavy-handed government intervention — would cause more problems than it was meant to solve (bureaucracy, regulation, inefficiencies, higher prices, black market, etc.). Do these advocates have a point?
Nestle: Regulation has its down side but overall I think rules — well designed and diligently enforced — are good for industry and I cannot understand why industry so strongly opposes regulation. It was ironic, but not surprising, that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which is under exceptionally intelligent leadership these days, is begging for more food safety regulation. Regulation is good for industry for three reasons: it establishes a level playing field, it helps restore consumer trust, and it is the right thing to do.
HSDW: Where do you stand on genetically modified food? Are opponents to GM mere modern-day Luddites? Is the scientific answers in yet about the long-term effect of genetic modification?
Nestle: I have a complicated answer to this question. Questions about GM foods generally fall into two categories: science (safety) and what I call values (ethics, morality, religion, and concerns about corporate control of the food supply). Even if GM foods are perfectly safe (a question that can be addressed with science), they are not necessarily acceptable (a question of values). That is why the labeling issue is so important. I think the GM industry made a huge mistake in opposing labeling. The food industry loves to invoke consumer choice to justify some of its iffier decisions, but in this case, consumers have no choice because GM foods are not labeled. What is this industry trying to hide? The industry’s lack of transparency is a value issue, and one that to my mind is reason enough for public concern.
