Where Does Foodborne Illness Happen—in the Home, at Foodservice, or Elsewhere—and Does It Matter?

Abstract

Foodservice professionals, politicians, and the media are often cited making claims as to which locations most often expose consumers to foodborne pathogens. Many times, it is implied that most foodborne illnesses originate from food consumed where dishes are prepared to order, such as restaurants or in private homes. The manner in which the question is posed and answered frequently reveals a speculative bias that either favors homemade or foodservice meals as the most common source of foodborne pathogens. Many answers have little or no scientific grounding, while others use data compiled by passive surveillance systems. Current surveillance systems focus on the place where food is consumed rather than the point where food is contaminated. Rather than focusing on the location of consumption-and blaming consumers and others-analysis of the steps leading to foodborne illness should center on the causes of contamination in a complex farm-to-fork food safety system.

Designing a National Restaurant Inspection Disclosure System for New Zealand

“…Public reporting of poor inspection results may lead to negative consumer attitudes toward an establishment, and consequently influence foodservice workers and managers to comply with regulations in order to improve food safety scores (Almanza et al, 2002 Hospitalization rates linked to suspect foodborne illnesses were seen to decrease by approximately 20% in the year a mandatory letter grade disclosure system was implemented in L.A. County (Jin & Leslie, 2003;Simon et al, 2005). However, limitations in surveillance data make it impossible to determine in which settings the majority of foodborne illnesses occur (Powell, 2002;Jacob & Powell, 2009), let alone the relationship between inspection disclosure systems and a reduction in illness rates.…”

“…Up to 70% of these illnesses are estimated to be linked to food prepared at foodservice establishments (Olsen et al, 2000;Lee & Middleton 2003; Center for Science in the Public Interest 2008; Jacob & Powell, 2009). Media coverage of food safety issues is extensive and may fuel the view that hygiene (or safety) standards are low among restaurants (Bruhn, 1997;Worsfold & Worsfold, 2008).…”

The use of restaurant inspection disclosure systems as a means of communicating food safety information

“…The World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of individuals in developed countries become ill from food or water each year (World Health Organization 2007). Up to 70% of these illnesses are estimated to be linked to food prepared at foodservice establishments (Olsen et al 2000;Lee & Middleton 2003; Center for Science in the Public Interest 2008; Jacob & Powell 2009). Media coverage of food safety issues is extensive and may fuel the view that hygiene (or safety) standards are low among restaurants (Bruhn 1997;Worsfold & Worsfold 2008).…”

Risk, anti-reflexivity, and ethical neutralization in industrial food processing

“…Food companies have frequently blamed individual consumers afflicted with illness for poor food handling practices, such as not thoroughly washing or cooking products (Nestle 2003;Jacob and Powell 2009;Moss 2009a). Although there have been a few notable exceptions (Moss 2009b), companies have tended to deny the existence of a true victim, suggesting that inflicted individuals have acted in ways that have brought harm upon themselves.…”

“…Although there have been a few notable exceptions (Moss 2009b), companies have tended to deny the existence of a true victim, suggesting that inflicted individuals have acted in ways that have brought harm upon themselves. While lawsuits may, to some extent, serve to expose this neutralization technique in the food industry (e.g., the work of Marler Clark), denial of the victim continues to represent a powerful narrative to shift attention away from systemic flaws in production (Jacob and Powell 2009).…”