The Ethics of Labeling Food Safety Risks
Food producers have answered increasing consumer demand for transparency through disclosure of information on food labels. Food safety labels act as a signal to consumers that certain products may pose a risk to human health. These labels are based on developments in microbiology and/or represent a required response to foodborne illness outbreaks. However, the scope of the risk posed by product consumption, as well as who is most vulnerable to harm, varies based on the ethical reasoning underlying the presence of the label on the package. This paper applies Thompson (International Journal of Food Science and Technology 36: 833–843, 2001)‘s theory on two contrasting ethical approaches to risk communication – choice optimization and informed consent – to evaluate the four most common food safety labels in the US: i) unpasteurized juice warnings; ii) egg carton safe handling instructions; iii) consumer advisories on restaurant menus; and iv) date labeling. While the choice optimization approach dictates that food safety labels are a necessary tool to equip consumers with specific information that will promote public health (i.e., egg carton safe handling instructions), informed consent obliges producers to disclose all relevant risk information so consumers can choose one product or another based on its adherence to individual values (e.g., unpasteurized juice; undercooked animal products). This paper finds that the US food safety regime represents a blending of these two ethical foundations, leading to substantial variation in risk consumer tolerance and/or aversion. One effect of the intermingling of these two ethical approaches is choice overload among consumers for newer food safety labels (e.g., date labels). This paper concludes with a discussion of policy prioritization in the context of an increasingly crowded food label marketplace.
KeywordsFood safety Risk Communication Consumers Choice Risk tolerance Risk aversion
I would like to thank Sandra Eskin, JD for the critical feedback she provided throughout all stages of this research. I would also like to thank David McSwane and Doug Farquhar for their assistance in providing essential background information.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest0.
- Belluck, P. 1998. Juice-poisoning case brings guilty Plea and a huge fine. New York Times. July 24, 1998. Available online at: https://www.nytimes.com/. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.
- Buzby, J.C., Frenzen, P.D., and Rasco, B., 2001. Product liability and microbial foodborne illness (p. 41). US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
- Cody, S.H., M.K. Glynn, J.A. Farrar, K.L. Cairns, P.M. Griffin, J. Kobayashi, et al. 1999. An outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection from unpasteurized commercial apple juice. Annals of Internal Medicine 130: 202–209. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-3-199902020-00005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deliganis, C.V. 1998. Death by apple juice: The problem of foodborne illness, the regulatory response, and further suggestions for reform. Food & Drug LJ 53: 681.Google Scholar
- Finn, A., and J.J. Louviere. 1992. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 11(2): 12–25.Google Scholar
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2013. A food labeling guide: Guidance for industry. January 2013. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov. Accessed 12 Aug 2018.
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. The food and drug administration’s comprehensive, multi-year nutrition innovation strategy; extension of the comment period. Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2381.Federal Register Vol. 83, No 163. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-08-22/pdf/2018-18072.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA) National Retail Food Team (NRFT). 2016. Adoption of the FDA food code by state and territorial agencies responsible for the oversight of restaurants and retail food stores. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/UCM577858.pdf. Access 10 Aug 2018.
- Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and Food Marketing Institute (FMI). 2017. Product code date labeling: Crucial initiative to reduce consumer confusion. Available online at: https://www.gmaonline.org/file-manager/2017%20Product%20Labeling%20White%20PaperV1_3.pdf. Accessed 5 Sep 2018.
- Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Committee on the Review of the Use of Scientific Criteria and Performance Standards for Safe Food. Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2003. Chapter 6, Scientific Criteria and Performance Standards to Control Hazards in Produce and Related Products. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221572/. Accessed 22 Aug 2018.
- Kim, J., B. Almanza, S. Sydnor, R. Ghiselli, and J. Neal. 2017a. Factors affecting consumption of raw or undercooked foods in restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 18(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
- National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. 2004. Requisite scientific parameters for establishing the equivalence of alternative methods of pasteurization. August 27, 2004. Available online at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov. Accessed 10 Sep 2018.
- Neff, R.A, Spiker, M., Rice, C., Schklair, A., Greenberg, S., Leib, E.B. 2019. Misunderstood food date labels and reported food discards: A survey of U.S. consumer attitudes and behaviors. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.023.
- ReFED. 2018. Spotlight on date labeling regulations. Available online at: https://www.refed.com/tools/food-waste-policy-finder/spotlight-on-date-labeling/carousel.
- Roosen, J. 2003. Marketing of safe food through labeling. Journal of Food Distribution Research 34 (3): 77–82.Google Scholar