No room for bad apples
Apples were one of the major fruits used, making the potential hazards from pesticides and fertilisers the first hurdle to be cleared.
There could also be naturally occurring toxic chemicals in apples, environmental pollutants such as heavy metals or persistent pesticides, chemicals leached from the food packaging into the baby food, or lastly, unintentional additives such as detergents or disinfectants used in the course of processing the baby food. It's much the same for any other food: a huge challenge to ensure the consumer gets a completely safe product.
That challenge extends beyond the farmers and food processors to the government and its agencies and taking short cuts, at any level, can have disastrous consequences, as seen in the food scares of recent years.
In particular, the British food industry and government have learned the cost of failure to initiate the 'precautionary principle'. This principle states that public actions should be taken to reduce potential hazards before there is strong proof of harm.
The warnings of scientists were rejected, and even when the crisis struck, it was wrong of government officials to try to play down BSE risks, in a well meaning attempt to shore up public perception about the safety of meat production.
But the UK authorities fell down again a few years later, with their insufficient surveillance of the livestock industry identified as a major factor in the catastrophic outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001.
In both cases, farmers and food processors were implicated too.
The Phillips Report concluded that BSE happened due to the search for greater profitability in agribusiness at all costs. And the rapid spread of the foot and mouth disease virus, even after it was detected, was attributed to competitive pressures in intensive agribusiness that led to practices like mixing animal flocks, widespread transport of animals, and animal holding centres.
Everyone in the chain from farm to fork paid dearly for the failings that led to these two major food scares. It was also pointed out at the Teagasc conference that each successive food crisis brings more groups and communities to the fore, challenging governments to think differently about farming and food production.
For example, the EU proposals on the transport of live animals, which strike fear into the hearts of Irish farmers, can be linked to the food scares backlash.
Food safety remains a huge and ongoing task. The point was made at the Teagasc conference that there can never be 100% accuracy or certainty in food safety only a best approach to deal with it in a timely way.
At the Teagasc conference, Agriculture and Food Minister Joe Walsh welcomed the EU's continued commitment to funding research in the food safety and quality areas.
But there's no sign of any relaxation in the ever increasing burden of food safety compliance for everyone in the industry. Instead, the Minister spoke of how pleased he was pleased that Ireland's EU presidency were able to deliver the Hygiene Package. Dealing with traceability of food along every link of the food chain, the Package harmonises and simplifies EU legislation previously covered by 17 separate directives.
Unfortunately, that means more compliance, more bureaucracy and, ultimately, higher production costs. For some farmers and processors, it will be the last straw. The consumer is king, but what can be done to ease the burden of servitude for those at the bottom of the food chain.
