If You’re Not Telling Your Customers What You Are Doing …

If asked to envision the origin of the slice of ham, bacon, or pork that one is eating, what would most people picture? The first thought for many is the grocery store where the package was purchased. But when encouraged to think further back, to the very origin, i.e., the pig, most consumers probably visualize a muddy sty filled with dirty, grunting pigs that are eating slop from a trough or rolling around the wet ground.

For better or worse, this is a far grunt from the actuality of most of today’s pig farms.

For better: to those who see the sanitation, standardization, and science of indoor breeding and raising as a primary reason that today’s pork is safer and can be eaten pink.

Or worse: to those who believe humane treatment means a completely natural environment for any animal.

With food sourcing and supply having gained consumer attention in recent years, it is not surprising that animal welfare has also surged to the forefront, or that, like other Internet-viral issues—such as “pink slime,” consumer advocacy is often based on emotion rather than science.

In June, I journeyed to Iowa to meet with representatives of the National Pork Board to discuss its animal welfare programs, then visited a farm to see the programs applied (Cover Profile: Iowa Select Farms, page 8). As has been the case with so many facilities I’ve visited, I came away from my travels realizing how much more there is to the management and science behind that piece of ham that I place on my sandwich without a second thought.

This management and science is a story that needs to be told, not simply in industry publications like QA, but in consumer media, including the many means of posting on the ever-virile Internet. There is certainly enough coverage of emotion-laced unsafe and/or disgruntled employee food practices on this free-for-all media (witness the Burger King lettuce-stomping photo that is all the news as I write this column). It behooves the industry to take a stronger stand in telling of its science-based food safety policies, innovation, and accomplishments—and retelling them as often as it takes to get the word out.

This issue also includes a strong focus on new technologies, and, similar to consumers’ view on food practices in general, the article, Consumer Perception of Food Technologies (page 45) shows that consumers are generally wary, uneasy, and uncertain about use of new technologies in food—until they gain knowledge and understanding, and see the benefits.

The same holds true of food safety. The more consumers hear about the science-based practices up and down the food-supply chain, the less susceptible they will be when emotion-laden blogs and videos come their way.

Prior to joining GIE Media, I was with Ecolab’s Pest Elimination Division. The division’s first president, Jim McCarty, had a saying that I’ve never forgotten and find just as applicable to the food industry as it is to pest control. Like the elimination of pests, food safety is something that is expected, cannot be seen, and is only noticed if it is lacking—that is if pests or contamination are present. Thus, McCarty cautioned associates, it is up to you to let your customers know what you are doing for them. Because … “If you’re not telling them what you’re doing, someone else will be telling them what you’re not.”

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.