The current EHEC (Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli) outbreak in Europe, in which over 1,200 documented cases have now been registered with the Robert Koch Institut (Germany’s equivalent of the U.S. CDC and FDA), provides us with grim, yet  stark example of how and why a preventative approach must serve as the primary mechanism for protection of our food supply – and ultimately our health.

According to the Koch Institut, 18 22 persons in Germany have already lost their lives after falling victim to the deadly HUS (Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome), which rapidly shuts down kidney functions, requiring 50% of patients to undergo dialysis and normally carries a 5% mortality rate.  In the current outbreak the numbers are skewed dramatically in the wrong direction. Typically only 15% of the most vulnerable patients (small children and the elderly) would develop HUS as a result of EHEC infection. In this case 512 642 of nearly 2200 infected patients of all ages have developed HUS!

If this were the work of a serial killer, a massive investigation and man hunt would ensue – aimed at preventing further fatalities by capturing, convicting and incarcerating the responsible party, thereby removing the deadly threat from the general public. Foodbourne illnesses don’t work that way.  By the time that the current, worldwide forensic investigation has isolated and removed the implicated food, more patients may die or suffer lifelong health consequences, but the sad truth is that this will not remove the threat. The only way to eliminate the threat of deadly food is to prevent it from entering the public food supply in the first place. 

Only after identifying the root cause of the contamination and its means of transmission will we even begin to start chipping away at the threat.  Long after the media attention surrounding the current EHEC outbreak subsides, farmers, food processors, transporters, retailers and servers will begin to mount the true assault on this and other deadly foodbourne and waterbourne pathogens and contaminants.  While the alarming severity of the current outbreak will induce an above-average counterresponse from the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and other such agencies around the globe, the truth is that we already have the weapons in our arsenal that could have stopped this killer in its tracks.

By adopting and embracing guidelines published by the World Health Organization’s food safety adjunct, known as the Codex Alimentarius, ongoing and emerging threats to our food supply can be greatly reduced.  Many of the Codex elements are already incorporated into food safety regulations worldwide.  For example, the recent enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act in the U.S., adopted in the wake of deaths from leafy greens, peanut products and cilantro, has subjected the preventative concepts of HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) and the associated prerequisite sanitation and opererational practices to a much larger segement of the food industry than was previously required.  Similarly, the EU/EC has already had comparable standards and oversight bodies in place. The problem is not our intentions, our goals or our standards.  The problem is the lack of adoption and incorporation of such practices in our globalized food production and distribution systems.

While it’s easy to accuse food producers and suppliers of taking shortcuts or calculated risks with our food in an attempt to maximize profits, the consumer must also accept some of the responsibility.  If consumers continue to send the message to producers that larger portions at lower prices are their primary purchasing criteria, producers and retailers will continue to prioritize those attributes – at the expense of food safety.  Accordingly, we must all be willing to absorb the front-end costs required to prevent the introduction of dangerous foods if we wish to avoid the seemingly random and often deadly back-end health costs, for which we are currently paying dearly.