Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Instead, the FDA issued a press release on September 22, 2006, indicating that “the
public can be confi dent that spinach grown in the nonimplicated areas can be con-
sumed” (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2006e). Unfortunately, this statement,
intended to let consumers know that they could resume eating spinach, generated
much less press coverage than the original press releases warning consumers that they
should not eat any fresh spinach (Nucci 2008; Pleasant 2008).
Whether due to a lack of a defi nitive statement, lack of press coverage, or lack
of attention by consumers, it is clear that many Americans did not get or believe
the message that spinach was now safe to eat. As of November 2006, nearly half
of those who had heard about the spinach recall were not completely confi dent that
it had ended. In addition, only a little more than half thought it defi nitely true
that authorities had declared that fresh spinach available in supermarkets was “safe
to eat. ”
A year later, spinach sales had yet to recover to their prerecall levels. According
to data from the Perishables group, spinach sales in July of 2007 were almost
$9,000,000 lower than in August of 2006 (Weise and Schmit 2007). This is consistent
with data from the USDA's Economic Research Service that showed declines in both
the supply and consumption of fresh spinach during 2007. In 2005, slightly more than
758 million pounds of fresh market spinach were produced domestically and nearly
28 million pounds were imported. In 2007, domestic production was estimated to be
only 680 million pounds, with accompanying imports declining to 20 million pounds.
Similarly, per capita use of fresh spinach fell from 2.5 pounds in 2005 to an estimated
2.2 pounds in 2007, a decline of 12% (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service 2007a).
These declines in the market for fresh spinach are consistent with the results of
our survey wherein 5% of consumers who had heard about the recall and who
ate spinach prior to it said they would not eat spinach again, 5% said they were
unlikely to eat spinach again, and 3% said they didn't know if, or when, they would
do so. We consider our data likely to underestimate the full effect of the recall on
produce sales.
The ambiguity regarding the end of the recall and lack of closure to the incident
may explain why many respondents said that they would wait an average of 2 months
before they would resume their consumption of spinach. In part, this waiting period
would likely be used by consumers to make sure that the contamination problem was
truly over.
All of the respondents to the survey were interviewed by November 29, 2006.
Soon after, on December 6, 2006, the FDA announced that it was investigating
E.
coli
O157:H7 infections associated with multiple Taco Bell restaurants in four states
(U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2006g). This outbreak sickened 71 people,
resulting in the hospitalization of 53, and in 8 cases of HUS by the time it was con-
sidered over on December 14, 2006 (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2006i).
Green onions contaminated with
E. coli
were originally suspected as the cause of the
outbreak, and were voluntarily recalled from Taco Bell restaurants (U.S. Food and
Drug Administration 2006h); however, the FDA subsequently identifi ed shredded
iceberg lettuce served at the restaurants as the source of the contamination (U.S. Food
and Drug Administration 2006i ). That
E. coli
O157:H7 infections associated with
