Lessons of the Listeria Outbreak: Do Locavores Make Us Less Safe?

As the death toll from listeria in cantaloupe reached 25 this week, marking the deadliest outbreak of foodborne illness in a quarter-century, some industry insiders are placing blame on the local foods movement. On economic grounds, they may have a point.

The contaminated melons were traced to a self-described small farm in Colorado that the FDA said had “poor sanitary” conditions. The FDA reported Wednesday that it found listeria in numerous areas of the farm’s packing facility, including a floor drain, a produce dryer, and a conveyor belt. Standing water and poorly designed equipment created “the perfect environment for listeria growth and spread,” according to one FDA expert. The farm claimed to have passed an outside audit just days before the outbreak that has sickened more than 100 people and devastated the cantaloupe industry. Farmers in California are plowing their crops under because of the collapse in demand.

That the outbreak occurred on a small farm selling principally to regional buyers is an obvious point, but also an important one because this kind of food contamination is less likely to occur at the large-scale farming operations that locavores love to hate. Consider first that local food systems largely ignore the important role comparative advantage plays in agriculture. Comparative advantage explains why corn is grown in Iowa, almonds in California, and winter vegetables in Florida. The different regions, with different soils, land qualities, climates, and opportunity costs specialize because they can produce their respective crops better than other regions. Comparative advantage implies significant gains from interregional and international trade. And it isn’t just relevant to costs of production and farm yields. It applies also to food safety.

Some regions are just safer places to grow certain crops than others—a point made recently by long-time food industry observer Jim Prevor at his “Perishable Pundit” website. Colorado, he notes, is a particularly unsafe place to grow cantaloupes, which are particularly susceptible to contamination because bacteria can hide out in the crevices of the melon’s rough skin. Rains splatter mud on the melons in Colorado, requiring them to be washed post harvest, a process that can lead to cross contamination among melons and create the moist conditions in which bacteria thrive.

In contrast, dry summers in California and Arizona create safe conditions for cantaloupe production because the crops are watered by drip irrigation and are much less likely to get dirty. Consequently, California cantaloupes bypass the rinsing phase and are packaged dry, sometimes right in the field. But the local foods movement kicks comparative advantage to the curb, favoring foods grown within a certain distance over foods grown in the best conditions.

The small farm is also likely to invest less in preventing food contamination than the big farm because its losses and legal exposure from any outbreak will be smaller. Even if the contaminated farm in Colorado grew half of the state’s 2,200 acres of cantaloupe, its loss from pulling its harvest is only $4 million in revenues. (The total U.S. harvest in 2010 was valued at $314 million.)

A larger farm has much more at stake, both in terms of lost harvest revenues and reputation. Reputation is critical to firms in the food industry as health scares can dramatically reduce demand well into the future. To large firms in the industry, an outbreak can mean hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone sales and liability. This creates a big incentive for these firms to invest in equipment, procedures, and testing to minimize the risk of food contamination at farms and packing sheds. Further, geographic concentration of production allows farms to work jointly and cooperatively to achieve food safety for their mutual protection.

It’s not just that the benefit of food safety investments (i.e., avoided losses) is lower for small farms. Their costs of achieving a given level of risk are often higher, too. Large firms exploit economies of size to achieve food safety standards more cheaply than small firms. A simple example is fencing a field to avoid animal intrusions and fecal contamination. The cost of fencing per unit area is decreasing in the size of the field. At $10 per foot, it costs $4000 to fence a 10,000 square-foot field. The cost of fencing a field 100 percent larger is only $5,650*, less than 50 percent more.

More generally, because of the fixed costs associated with prevention efforts, large firms have an advantage in mitigating against food contamination. They can spread the costs of equipment and personnel over larger quantities of output to lower their average costs. Thus it is no surprise that research by economists at UC Davis, and the USDA found that large food operations have lower costs for complying with food safety standards and are more likely to invest in equipment and pathogen testing to reduce contamination risk. Large firms also often hire food safety specialists to oversee food safety protocols and testing for contamination.

Because the costs of achieving low levels of contamination risk are so high for small farms, they were exempted from stricter food safety standards required by Food Safety Modernization Act signed by President Obama earlier this year. The act calls for the USDA to issue tighter standards for preventive measures and testing on farms and elsewhere in the food supply chain.

Food-safety costs are also greater for the taxpayer when dealing with small-scale, geographically scattered farming. The cost of monitoring regulatory compliance is smaller the fewer and more concentrated the farms become. In the locavore utopia, federal inspectors would have to travel to hundreds of local food sheds and inspect dozens, perhaps hundreds, of farms in each one. As the number of commercial farms increases, either the costs of labor and transportation associated with inspection go up, or the compliance level falls. The local foods movement, then, makes it more costly for the government to assure the food supply is safe.

Finally, assuming small farms are not inherently safer than large farms, then as food retailers endeavor to meet the demands of locavores by sourcing meats and produce from local farms, they must compromise on other priorities, like reducing contamination risk. Food retailers have many objectives in securing produce from suppliers, including minimizing cost and maximizing flavor. The many potentially conflicting objectives impede the retailer’s ability to achieve any one objective to the greatest degree possible. The retailer faces tradeoffs. Sourcing local food from smaller farms that are less effective in mitigating contamination risk almost surely comes at the cost of food safety, a point also made by Mr. Prevor.

The recent listeria outbreak highlights the risk posed by accidental food contamination to consumers and farmers alike. Twenty-five dead. Hundreds sick. And millions of dollars of cantaloupe plowed into the ground. It’s a painful reminder of how much we rely on a safe and secure food system. And it is worth asking if a local food future will put us at greater risk.

*An earlier version incorrectly read, “At $10 per foot, it costs $4000 to fence a 1000 square-foot field. The cost of fencing a field 100 percent larger is only $6,000, a mere 50 percent more.”

TAGS: , ,

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. jonathan says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 39
  2. Mark says:

    Any time a “small” farm has enough of anything to sell into a “regional” market, it’s not a part of the locavore movement. This wasn’t a small farm – more than two acres of melons is big time production, and if you have packing facility, you are not a small farm. Your argument starts with a bad assumption because you don’t know anything about farming. Your headline is therefore incorrect and should be changed immediately.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 90 Thumb down 42
  3. Bill says:

    I can fence a 10,000 square foot field for $4000, not the 1,000 sq-foot field mentioned in the article. The field does need to be square to do it, however.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
  4. Mike B says:

    It seems that both those on the extreme right and left are more than willing to substitute facts and evidence for their own self-indulgent world views. If only we could go back in time and insert a passage in the Bible where Jesus performs a peer-reviewed study then acts on its counter-intuitive conclusions to great success.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 5
  5. aaron says:

    It can and has happened at large food processing plants as well: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2009/08/24/maple-leaf-anniversary-listeriosis.html

    May have addressed economic reasons (which are obvious), but I still believe the problem of listeria isn’t resolved within your argument.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3
  6. Davis says:

    The example of the listeria outbreak in cantaloupe actually undermines your point about local food. The outbreak from Colorado-grown cantaloupe caused deaths in 26 states, including as far away as Maryland and Pennsylvania. Meanwhile no locals were killed (or sickened-to my knowledge). The farm that produced these cantaloupe sold to mass-retailers and grocers. The farms that sell locally from farm-stands in Southern Colorado produced safe melons, which by-the-way are also widely regarded as the best melons in the world.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 88 Thumb down 0
    • Enter your name... says:

      Well, not exactly. Strict locavores don’t eat anything that wasn’t grown in their neighborhood, which means not eating cantaloupe (or berries, or stone fruits, or…) at all for much of the year if you live in the upper Midwest.

      However, the vast majority aren’t strict, and most of them choose “the closest cantaloupe, even if it’s from 1000 miles away”, i.e., the ones from Colorado even if they live in Minnesota, on the grounds that Colorado is closer than California, rather than no cantaloupe at all.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14
    • James says:

      “…Southern Colorado produced safe melons, which by-the-way are also widely regarded as the best melons in the world.”

      Only if you’ve never tasted a Fallon (Nevada) melon :-)

      The real question here, I think, is why the melons needed to be washed, especially as it seems to be known that the washing could cause bacterial problems.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
      • J S says:

        eh? what about your carrots? Farming involves growing stuff on the ground, in the dirt, and out in the open. The wind drives dust across a dry field. Gritty lettuce? Then people wash stuff at home, maybe have dogs or cats (“livestock”) living with them. The sources are infinite. Unfortunate incidence here, but always a risk.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  7. MossHops says:

    “Finally, assuming small farms are not inherently safer than large farms…” This is the fundamental unproven assumption of the article. There are a lot of reasons that one can point to as to why a large farm should be safer. The question is if there is any data that actually supports your assumption.

    Fundamentally, there is the issue that most large scale operations are designed from the ground up to maximize profit. In light of this, the letter of the law is followed, but not the spirit of trying to actually protect the food supply. The fact that we have to introduce food irradiation is a good indicator of this problem.

    Second, in light of maximizing profits, the larger scale operation will have greater ability and incentive to externalize costs. Again, using the meat industry as an example taking actions such as creating a manure pit of toxic waste makes sense for a large scale cattle operation. It doesn’t make as much sense for the poly-cultural farmer who has to maximize resources.

    If large scale operations have a point on economic grounds, than their point would be one that does not take into account a massive amount of extenalities and rather focuses very narrowly on cost of compliance and possible profit.

    All of my comments (and the articles as well) are conjecture. I can give you reason why the polycultural small scale farmer should be safer, and you can tell me why a large scale operation is so, but unless there is data to back up your hypothesis, this whole argument is specious.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 4
    • Winston says:

      You raise several great points here, as have many others. At the risk (ha) of being redundant, I’d like to tack on my two cents.

      “To large firms in the industry, an outbreak can mean hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone sales and liability. This creates a big incentive for these firms to invest in equipment, procedures, and testing to minimize the risk of food contamination at farms and packing sheds. Further, geographic concentration of production allows farms to work jointly and cooperatively to achieve food safety for their mutual protection.”

      That supporters of large-scale/centralized agriculture tout it’s capacity to do more harm/create greater costs as a strength seems rather alarming. It’s completely illogical (if your end goal is preserving public health and not solely trying to cover your ass) to try and incentive safety by increasing the ability of a farm/agri-business to potentially do harm. It’s verging on a MAD strategy where you try and push the boundaries of risk in a “we’re screwed if we’re not perfectly crossing our t’s and dotting our i’s” ; if you had one farm do it all it would only take one farm/mistake to cause an incredible amount of harm.

      The author’s discussion of comparative advantage seems flawed in other ways, too. Orange County in CA had/has great soil and conditions for growing oranges and yet the orange groves were bulldozed for housing. I’m in San Francisco and I can personally tell you that many of the orange juice cartons the school district here provides for reduced lunch list several different countries for it’s concentrate. It’s quite possibly the crummiest product pretending to be O.J. Comparative advantage might have won out for immediate costs in this case (outsourced production is cheaper and other countries have an advantage in that) but the quality of the product itself has been sacrificed, to the detriment of the children drinking it. That might have been a bit of a tangent, but I hope it conveys a point.

      The market, composed of fallible individuals and groups with their own objectives, does not always get it right/find the “best use.” That’s fundamentally assuming there is one “best” use and that there’s some procedure to find it. I’m not saying localization of food is an immediate panacea; certainly other safeguards can protect good food, but it fundamentally makes it harder to send a pathogen to a larger population.

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
  8. Corwin says:

    Now…hang on a second. I’m not a locavore, but my understanding of them is that they generally eat food grown within a small(50-100 miles) radius. This outbreak occurred all over the US, so the farm from whence the outbreak occurred was not a farm that caters to locavores.

    Your point about small vs large farms may stand, but don’t try to blame people who are entirely unrelated to the issue.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 2