Articles by Levick Experts

Nowhere is public confidence more endangered than when threats confront the food supply. As a matter of public communications, it’s a challenge for both food companies and the government. No doubt, the private and public sectors have a mutual interest in securing realistic public expectations as well as disseminating solutions.

A case in point is the ongoing crisis involving ConAgra, a food industry giant that has dealt with contamination issues at a peanut butter plant in Georgia. During a routine government inspection of the facility in 2004, ConAgra acknowledging destroying some product, but would not disclose more detail without a written request from the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA never issued one.

On April 23, 2007, the Washington Post ran front-page coverage that depicted the FDA as incapable of adequately protecting the safety of the food supply. The reasons:

• Resources. When the federal budget gets tight, the FDA’s food program gets hit the hardest.
• Power. The FDA does not have the same recall power with food as it does with drugs. Typically, it will effectively jawbone recalls, but some food industry experts are still urging Congress to formally grant recall power on food, particularly as imports increase.
• Oversight. The FDA has acknowledged its inability to discover some problems on its own and relies heavily on the food industry to self-police. Yet incidents like ConAgra create public doubt that the private sector even wants to police itself.

There are no glib solutions but, strategically, campaigns to address these systemic problems must cover at least three fronts.

• Both the private and public sectors should seek to directly change public expectations. The public tends to expect absolute safety guarantees, which is an unrealizable expectation. Instead, the industry must begin to use specific, credible, and reassuring language to underscore current safeguards codified as “Good Manufacturing Practices” (GMP). GMP should be as familiar a phrase to the public as “USDA Inspected.” A side of beef that eludes USDA inspection will likely be perceived and forgiven as wholly aberrational. Similarly, whenever GMP standards are violated, the regular industry-wide use of a term like “rogue event” can underscore the equally aberrational nature of those slip-ups.
• The private sector should exceed, not meet, reasonable self-policing protocols. Trade associations have a key role to play here as was shown during the spinach E.coli crisis when, among numerous similar initiatives, association spokespersons reached out to the media to discuss the future safeguards the industry is pursuing.
• Companies should base their communications and their various messages on the assumption that what strengthens the FDA strengthens private industry. They should take that message beyond the lobbyists in Washington and trumpet it loudly at every opportunity.

Companies that run to the crisis take leadership positions. The food industry, for one, cannot afford a leadership void.