Psychological distortion?

The 45th Fresh Talk poll is one of the most provocative and hotly contested.

The question simply asks, “Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
As of July 17, and with four days left to vote, the voters were pinning the blame fairly evenly between growers, retailers, foodservice operators and consumers.

Full disclosure: I voted for “consumers,” primarily because I think too many of us pay no heed to concepts such as the “safe food zone” and other common sense practices.
I asked the question of Fresh Talk’s companion board, the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group, and an online message board called “Food Safe.” That forum draws many food safety professionals. Beyond that, I asked what statistics are available to support any answer. Check out the Food Safe thread here.


You will find the first response to my question on “who is to blame” was “lawyers,” left in tongue in cheek style by the food safety attorney himself, Bill Marler.
Another Food Safe board member, David, said this:

“As soon as I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones don’t make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there are enough people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway. “

Roy Costa wrote this response on the Food Safe board:

“You asked: "Who do you think is to "blame" for most cases of foodborne illness"?
I believe you have to ask a different question to get the answer you are looking for. The better question is: "What is the "population attributable risk" for FBI at each step in production for each of the major FBI pathogens"? You must ask this question because FBI hazards flow down through the chain creating exposures at each link.
Definition: Population attributable risk (PAR) is the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current (actual) exposure pattern.
In the example below, if all the risk from Salmonella exposures attributed to primary producers was removed, the remaining risk of salmonellosis in the population would be 80%, etc. These following estimates are mostly my best judgment, but I have some data to support them. (OK. I will dig it all up if you are willing to send me a retainer, whataya want for free?)
Costa’s estimates for Population Attributable Samonellosis Risk Primary producers: 20%
Manufacturers 20%
Retailers 10%
Foodservice 40%
Consumers 10%

Carl on the Food Safe board said the question was loaded.
"Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?"
“(This question is a form of psychological and perceptual distortion, better known as blaming the victim, i.e., the people doing the work.)”
“When you ask about blame, it is a vastly different list. “
“This list is a list of people charged with carrying out actions not designing, training, governing, promoting and funding the actions involved with feeding people and caring for public health and sick people. “

Luis, a long time contributor to the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Board, posed this question in return:

Question is harder to answer than it appears.
“Suppose someone grilled a burger medium-rare this past 4th of July and his family got sick. Assuming, to quote Rosa DeLauro, that E. Coli does not occur naturally in beef, who do we blame? “

Finally, Steve on the Food Safe Board perceptively said that “holes” in each of the supply chain segment are where the blame lies.

“The biggest hole of them all – the regulatory agency that throws blameless growers under the bus.”

Who is to blame? As the salmonella investigation shows, everyone will get their share whether they deserve it or not.