When reading a WSJ article makes you sick
When reading a WSJ article makes you sick
For print journalists who attempt to paint a picture with their words, the usually colorless Wall Street Journal is the holy grail of the newspaper world.
Though it has succumbed slightly to the print media trend of clouding words with pictures, it has stayed pretty close to its roots of letting well-written words tell the story.
Hence, it is particularly galling when The Wall Street Journal plays it loose and publishes a story that isn't supported by facts.
Such was the case with a Nov. 29 article titled "When Eating Your Vegetables Makes You Sick."
Writer Jane Zhang reported that according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, "produce accounts for 12 percent of all foodborne illnesses and 6 percent of the outbreaks, up from 1 percent of the illnesses and 0.7 percent of the outbreaks in the 1970s."
In her lead paragraph, she theorizes that the rise in illnesses is caused by increased consumption of vegetables by Americans. She said that the "healthy trend comes with a frightening risk: Illnesses traced to fresh produce are on the rise."
Whether writing a story in the venerable WSJ or a specialized trade newspaper or even a school newspaper, the most important thing a journalist must do is look below the surface and dig just a bit deeper to tell the rest of the story.
The biggest problem with Ms. Zhang's story is that she begins with a false premise. For the purpose of her story, she said that Americans are eating more vegetables, hence there are more illnesses.
Unfortunately, as the produce industry is well aware, there has not been a significant increase in vegetable consumption in this country since the 1970s. In fact, some might argue that consumption of greens, which Ms. Zhang believes have increased, have actually dropped. To support her premise, she used statistics she says are from the Produce Marketing Association to show that per-capita consumption of fresh produce rose from 287 pounds in 1992 to 332 pounds in 2004. Other studies have clearly shown that per-capita consumption of fruits and vegetable has risen very little, if at all, and the biggest increase since the 1970s has come from french fries eaten at fast food restaurants.
The statistics Ms. Zhang cites from the CDC show a 1,200 percent increase in produce-related illnesses and an 860 percent increase in produce-related outbreaks. Even using the PMA statistics -- which show a 16 percent increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables over 11 years -- there is nothing that would tie the increases in illnesses and outbreaks to increased consumption. It is statistically irrelevant.
Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association, said that the increased reporting of food-borne incidents has absolutely nothing to do with increased consumption. Rather, he said that it has everything to do with the scientific ability to identify the source of illnesses. He has no doubt that produce is safer today than it was 20 or 30 years ago when, statistically, fresh produce was not cited as often in food-borne illnesses. It may have, in fact, been the culprit more often than it is today, but it could not be proven at the time.
A similar problem exists today. For a variety of reasons -- most notably because produce is highly perishable and is out of the food distribution channels usually within days - - it is still very difficult to trace an outbreak in which produce is suspected back to its root cause. The latest outbreak dealing with Dole fresh-cut lettuce was not traced positively back to its roots.
Jennifer Morcone, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention's food-borne illness division, agreed that the rise in reported outbreaks does not mean that there have been increased incidents. In fact, she said that the CDC tracks food-borne problems with two different reporting systems. One, called Foodnet, specifically tracks problematic pathogens, while another system tracks outbreaks. Pathogen problems are decreasing, while reports of outbreaks are increasing.
Ms. Morcone said that this would lead one to believe that the ability to identify outbreaks is what has increased as opposed to the actual number of outbreaks. By all measures, she said that the food supply is safer today that it has ever been.
Jim Gorny of United said that the reason for the big jump in produce-related food-borne illnesses and outbreaks is simply because they are looking for them now.
"In the 1970s, fruits and vegetables were not suspected to be carriers of those pathogens [that caused people to get sick]," said Dr. Gorny. "If there was a problem, they would look at meat and poultry, not fresh produce. If you are not looking, you are not going to find it."
In the 1970s, Dr. Gorny said that produce-related illnesses were undoubtedly under-reported.
Mr. Stenzel believes it is also unfair to cast aspersions on the fresh-cut industry or foreign-grown produce, as the story did. While there have been some outbreaks traced to fresh-cut product, he said that the product is not inherently unsafe. And, in fact, he would argue that the vast majority of lettuce consumed today is certainly safer than it was 20 or 30 years ago when current food safety standards were not in play. He said the same thing about product from Mexico and other foreign countries.
"Sure, one outbreak was tied to green onions from Mexico, but that doesn't mean the whole country is unsafe," Mr. Stenzel said.
Despite these apparent holes in The Wall Street Journal story, Mr. Stenzel is not interested in directing his energies toward picking a fight with that publication or with the Food & Drug Administration, which seemingly planted the seed for the story with its "warning letter" to the lettuce industry a few weeks ago.
"Fresh produce is safe," said Mr. Stenzel. "We have a billion servings a day [of fresh fruits and vegetables] with no one getting sick. We do have one or two outbreaks a year, and we need to direct our energy to eliminating those or at least reducing the risk."
He said that it is unlikely that every risk factor can be mitigated as the industry does grow and sell a raw product that tends to be consumed without a "kill step," such as pasteurization or cooking. "We are not going to stop a wild bird from flying over a field and contaminating one or two heads," he said. "But we can eliminate contamination that might come from a water source that irrigated 500 acres, and we have to do that."
Mr. Stenzel said that the produce industry has taken the FDA letter seriously and is working at breakneck speed to do everything it can to eliminate outbreaks. But until all outbreaks are eliminated -- a circumstance that he admits may not be possible -- "we have to expect stories like this. I don't like them and they are not good for the industry or consumer confidence, but we have to expect them."
Though it has succumbed slightly to the print media trend of clouding words with pictures, it has stayed pretty close to its roots of letting well-written words tell the story.
Hence, it is particularly galling when The Wall Street Journal plays it loose and publishes a story that isn't supported by facts.
Such was the case with a Nov. 29 article titled "When Eating Your Vegetables Makes You Sick."
Writer Jane Zhang reported that according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, "produce accounts for 12 percent of all foodborne illnesses and 6 percent of the outbreaks, up from 1 percent of the illnesses and 0.7 percent of the outbreaks in the 1970s."
In her lead paragraph, she theorizes that the rise in illnesses is caused by increased consumption of vegetables by Americans. She said that the "healthy trend comes with a frightening risk: Illnesses traced to fresh produce are on the rise."
Whether writing a story in the venerable WSJ or a specialized trade newspaper or even a school newspaper, the most important thing a journalist must do is look below the surface and dig just a bit deeper to tell the rest of the story.
The biggest problem with Ms. Zhang's story is that she begins with a false premise. For the purpose of her story, she said that Americans are eating more vegetables, hence there are more illnesses.
Unfortunately, as the produce industry is well aware, there has not been a significant increase in vegetable consumption in this country since the 1970s. In fact, some might argue that consumption of greens, which Ms. Zhang believes have increased, have actually dropped. To support her premise, she used statistics she says are from the Produce Marketing Association to show that per-capita consumption of fresh produce rose from 287 pounds in 1992 to 332 pounds in 2004. Other studies have clearly shown that per-capita consumption of fruits and vegetable has risen very little, if at all, and the biggest increase since the 1970s has come from french fries eaten at fast food restaurants.
The statistics Ms. Zhang cites from the CDC show a 1,200 percent increase in produce-related illnesses and an 860 percent increase in produce-related outbreaks. Even using the PMA statistics -- which show a 16 percent increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables over 11 years -- there is nothing that would tie the increases in illnesses and outbreaks to increased consumption. It is statistically irrelevant.
Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association, said that the increased reporting of food-borne incidents has absolutely nothing to do with increased consumption. Rather, he said that it has everything to do with the scientific ability to identify the source of illnesses. He has no doubt that produce is safer today than it was 20 or 30 years ago when, statistically, fresh produce was not cited as often in food-borne illnesses. It may have, in fact, been the culprit more often than it is today, but it could not be proven at the time.
A similar problem exists today. For a variety of reasons -- most notably because produce is highly perishable and is out of the food distribution channels usually within days - - it is still very difficult to trace an outbreak in which produce is suspected back to its root cause. The latest outbreak dealing with Dole fresh-cut lettuce was not traced positively back to its roots.
Jennifer Morcone, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention's food-borne illness division, agreed that the rise in reported outbreaks does not mean that there have been increased incidents. In fact, she said that the CDC tracks food-borne problems with two different reporting systems. One, called Foodnet, specifically tracks problematic pathogens, while another system tracks outbreaks. Pathogen problems are decreasing, while reports of outbreaks are increasing.
Ms. Morcone said that this would lead one to believe that the ability to identify outbreaks is what has increased as opposed to the actual number of outbreaks. By all measures, she said that the food supply is safer today that it has ever been.
Jim Gorny of United said that the reason for the big jump in produce-related food-borne illnesses and outbreaks is simply because they are looking for them now.
"In the 1970s, fruits and vegetables were not suspected to be carriers of those pathogens [that caused people to get sick]," said Dr. Gorny. "If there was a problem, they would look at meat and poultry, not fresh produce. If you are not looking, you are not going to find it."
In the 1970s, Dr. Gorny said that produce-related illnesses were undoubtedly under-reported.
Mr. Stenzel believes it is also unfair to cast aspersions on the fresh-cut industry or foreign-grown produce, as the story did. While there have been some outbreaks traced to fresh-cut product, he said that the product is not inherently unsafe. And, in fact, he would argue that the vast majority of lettuce consumed today is certainly safer than it was 20 or 30 years ago when current food safety standards were not in play. He said the same thing about product from Mexico and other foreign countries.
"Sure, one outbreak was tied to green onions from Mexico, but that doesn't mean the whole country is unsafe," Mr. Stenzel said.
Despite these apparent holes in The Wall Street Journal story, Mr. Stenzel is not interested in directing his energies toward picking a fight with that publication or with the Food & Drug Administration, which seemingly planted the seed for the story with its "warning letter" to the lettuce industry a few weeks ago.
"Fresh produce is safe," said Mr. Stenzel. "We have a billion servings a day [of fresh fruits and vegetables] with no one getting sick. We do have one or two outbreaks a year, and we need to direct our energy to eliminating those or at least reducing the risk."
He said that it is unlikely that every risk factor can be mitigated as the industry does grow and sell a raw product that tends to be consumed without a "kill step," such as pasteurization or cooking. "We are not going to stop a wild bird from flying over a field and contaminating one or two heads," he said. "But we can eliminate contamination that might come from a water source that irrigated 500 acres, and we have to do that."
Mr. Stenzel said that the produce industry has taken the FDA letter seriously and is working at breakneck speed to do everything it can to eliminate outbreaks. But until all outbreaks are eliminated -- a circumstance that he admits may not be possible -- "we have to expect stories like this. I don't like them and they are not good for the industry or consumer confidence, but we have to expect them."
