Quotes of the Day
No one yet knows what vegetable or fruit is the ultimate source of the outbreak of a deadly form of E. coli in Europe. Nor do officials know at what point the contamination occurred: on the farm, as agricultural workers handled the produce, as a result of packaging, in the midst of transport or at some other point in the chain of supply? What is clear is that, even after the health hazards are contained, questions will have to be asked about how well the E.U.'s food-safety system works.
European officials are adamant that the system does work. "Of course, when you talk about people dying, it is serious," says Pekka Pesonen, secretary general of the European farmers' union. "But we have to keep in mind that we have 500 million consumers in the E.U., and our food-safety standards are probably the best in the world." The 27-nation organization has a Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, set up in 1979, that includes several non-E.U. states in its reports. In 2009, there were about 8,000 alerts of which only 500 were serious warnings about food already on the market.
However, that mechanism is based on an honor system. Whenever and wherever an E.U. member state faces a serious and damaging food issue, it must inform the European Commission and all the other member states. In the current crisis, the information shared by the Commission with the E.U. 27 was based on findings made by local authorities in Hamburg — the general locus of the outbreak — and German federal authorities. But somehow, things went wrong — resulting in intra-E.U. bickering, widespread economic harm and broader trade ramifications.
Originally, Hamburg authorities identified the source of the outbreak as Spanish cucumbers. This was not only incorrect but also led to an acrimonious argument between Spain and Germany, with Madrid demanding compensation for the damage done. It is estimated that 150,000 tons of cucumbers went unsold in Spain, with the losses put at more than €200 million ($290 million) a week. Given the importance of the agricultural sector to the Spanish economy (which is already burdened by more than 20% unemployment), German finger pointing had a clear cost. It was, perhaps, a classic clash between Germanic overcaution and Latin pride, and had echoes in the ongoing euro-zone saga that pits Berlin's stern budget balancing against the perceived profligacy of southern Europe.
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke to Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero by phone, she said she regretted the damage caused to the Spanish economy. But she said the Hamburg authorities had acted in accordance with German law — and, in any case, they did find E. coli in the Spanish imports, even if it was not the deadly strain they were looking for. Merkel tried to soothe Zapatero's anger by suggesting that there may be E.U. payouts for the Spanish farmers' losses, although it was not clear why Europe, rather than Germany, should foot this bill.
The German system may need revamping. Germany has a federal agency responsible for disease control, the Robert Koch Institute, which is headquartered in Berlin and is carrying out tests on the bacterium. But in Germany individual states are responsible for health issues, so each state authority is also conducting tests — which is probably, according to some critics, becoming a giant maelstrom of uncoordinated information. Hence the cucumber blame game at the beginning of the crisis and the still unsubstantiated weekend reports of German bean sprouts' being the culprit. Says Flemming Scheutz, director of a World Health Organization research center in Copenhagen: "There is no central network to coordinate the response to an E. coli outbreak on a national level [in Germany] ... There is no central network of communication between the different states in Germany."
Perhaps as a result, the blame-Spain and bean-sprout stories emerged and spread. Says John Dalli, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy: "It is crucial that national authorities do not rush to give information on source of infection which is not proven by any bacteriological analysis, as this spreads unjustified fears in the population all over Europe and creates problems for our food producers in selling products in the E.U. and outside." Adds Pesonen, the European farmers' union chief: "Information flow needs to be secured between local and regional, national and E.U. authorities."
The economic cost is significant for Germany too. The German Farmers' Association has estimated that vegetable farmers are losing around €30 million ($44 million) a week in sales. Restaurants, suppliers and markets have also been hit hard. But there are wider ramifications. Two countries have banned all E.U. farm products altogether: Lebanon and, all the more significantly, Russia. E.U. countries export between €3 billion and €4 billion ($4.3 billion and $5.8 billion) fresh fruit and vegetables to Russia per year, primarily in apples, making it by far the largest export market for European growers. That includes 11% of its tomatoes and 5% of cucumbers. The Europeans believe that Moscow is being malicious, trying to gain the upper hand as it maneuvers toward joining the World Trade Organization (talks are set to begin on June 9). Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said the ban may go against "the spirit of the World Trade Organization ... but cucumbers that people die after eating really stink." Paola Testori Coggi, head of the European Commission's health directorate, called the ban "disproportionate, scientifically unjustified and as such not in line with the principles set by agreements."
"It's a Russian habit. They love to slap bans on our exports, and it fits in with their 'us against them' mentality," said one E.U. official. Indeed, in January, the Russian state consumer rights watchdog urged consumers to avoid German food imports because of possible dioxin contamination and to purchase local products instead (even though the Commission said the levels of dioxin in contaminated eggs and meat posed no health risk). In 2005, Moscow imposed a ban on Polish meat and other farm products, saying the quality of Polish food products was low and did not meet hygienic standards, although Polish and E.U. officials vehemently rejected the claims.
All this turmoil — 2,300 infections, 22 deaths as well as economic chaos — all because of a bacterium that wiggled into the food-supply chain. Says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, an environmental NGO based in Washington: "A lot of time can pass between someone eating a food that makes them sick and an outbreak investigation figuring out the source, because there are so many steps in the process. By the time people get sick — which can take days or even a week after eating the food — and go to the hospital, it gets reported into the system and they get interviewed about what they ate, a good bit of time has passed. All the while, the food may have been distributed further and eaten by more people."
When the investigation reaches its conclusion, the existing system may come in for a fresh overhaul — with potentially expensive results. Says Pesonen: "All too often, problems in one part of the food chain may lead to a collapse of the whole food chain. This is becoming increasingly difficult to manage due to more efficient production processes. Margins of maneuver are limited, no buffer stocks exist and everything should be delivered just in time. In many cases, the production process takes months or even years. If we have a withdrawal of one part of the chain, it would be very difficult or even impossible to recover in other parts of the chain." Sometimes, all it takes is a little bug to undo even the best of systems.
— With reporting by Tristana Moore / Berlin
- Leo Cendrowicz / Brussels