|
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
 |
An Excess of
Caution
By Kate Burch
Recently General Mills, “in an excess of caution,” has voluntarily
recalled, more than ten million pounds of flour, and also some baking
mixes containing the targeted lots of flour, because of the possibility
that the flour was contaminated with a particular strain of E. coli
bacteria. This bacteria causes acute gastrointestinal symptoms,
sometimes including bloody diarrhea. In weakened individuals or
the very young or the elderly, it may cause renal failure, and even
death. While E. coli contamination of grains is rare—meats and
produce being more usual sources—it can happen if grain crops are
irrigated with tainted water. There were thirty-eight cases of
illness caused by the E. coli strain in twenty different states.
Ten were hospitalized, none developed renal failure, and all
recovered.
Attempts to trace the genesis of such illness by the FDA include
genetic typing of the organism and interviews with victims asking them
to recall everything that they have consumed in the previous seven
days. Two cases involving genetically identical organisms are
considered to constitute an outbreak. In this case, about half of
those who were afflicted reported having cooked something at home using
flour, some reported using a General Mills flour product, and some
admitted to possibly having consumed raw dough. E. coli is
destroyed by cooking, and General Mills flour products have a prominent
warning, in red ink, on the packaging against eating it
raw. It should be noted here that, though heating does
destroy pathogens, heat treating also damages properties of flour that
affect its behavior in the cooking process. Good-bye home
baking.
According to the Food and Drug Administration’s website, "To date
E. coli O121 has not been found in any General Mills flour products or
in the flour manufacturing facility, and the company has not been
contacted directly by any consumer reporting confirmed illnesses
related to these products…" Nevertheless, to protect their brand
and fend off lawyers, General Mills made the recall, at considerable
cost to the company and, ultimately, to consumers.
Does this seem like overkill to you? Does it remind you of the
famous case in which a woman successfully sued McDonald’s when she
placed a cup of scalding hot coffee between her thighs while driving
and suffered burns when the coffee—wonder of wonders—spilled?
Does it remind you of the rule at many schools barring any peanut
containing foods in the building because one percent of the U.S.
population has a peanut allergy? Does it remind you of the
current imbroglio over public restrooms in which we are asked to place
our children at risk of affront or assault to accommodate a truly tiny
slice of the populace? Does it remind you of the insistence on
providing “safe spaces” to mollify the habitually indignant? Does
it remind you of a bartender being sued because he served a person who
drove away with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit and was
involved in an accident?
How much responsibility, really, does society as a whole have to
accommodate the peculiar vulnerabilities, exaggerated sensibilities, or
personality aberrations of a tail of the distribution when such
accommodation causes marked inconvenience, distress, or economic harm
to the vast middle? I believe that full disclosure of ingredients
in prepared foods is essential, but I also believe that the parents of
a child with peanut allergy are responsible for teaching their child
the appropriate preventive measures and appropriate intervention to
avoid problems. Warnings on labels about potential risks, such as
from eating raw flour, are appropriate and pro-social. Consumers,
and not the providers of a good or a service, however, must be
responsible for heeding warnings and exercising common sense.
|
|
|
|
