CHEESE, POLITICS, AND HUMAN HEALTH:                    How the Media Failed to Critique Recent Government Policy

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECENTLY PROPOSED an amendment to the Food and Drug Regulations that would ban the production and sale of raw-milk cheese. Citing evidence that links unpasteurized cheese with outbreaks of listeria, salmonella, and e. coli, new regulations would require that cheese be produced from pasteurized or heat-treated milk.

Government regulations are a rapidly burgeoning field. In efforts to ensure the health and safety of Canadians, defend consumers' rights, and protect the environment, successive federal and provincial governments have passed in excess of 100,000 regulations over the past two decades. [Fazil Mihlar, work in progress, The Fraser Institute; Economic Council of Canada, Responsible Regulation: An Interim Report, Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1979, pp. 14-18; the Privy Council Office.]

In this context, one more regulation, this time outlawing the 90 odd varieties of raw-milk cheeses such as certain camemberts and roqueforts, may seem insignificant. But upon closer reflection, this latest proposal is illustrative of media's inability to describe the complex interactions between consumers, government, and business which can, and often does, impinge on the lives of all Canadians.

For example, did the media reports examine the consumers' right to choice? Legislation such as this current proposal suggests that Canadians are incapable of understanding and assessing risks, and that an appropriate role for government is akin to that of a parental authority, determining what is and what is not to be served for dinner. Further, even if the risks posed by raw-milk cheese warrant intervention, will the proposed regulations have the desired effect? Or are there alternative uses for taxpayers' money which would ultimately have a greater impact on the health of Canadians?

This issue of On Balance will examine these issues in light of recent media attention, and lack of attention, to the proposed amendment of the regulations governing cheese production and the science which supports the vast array of regulation presently in place.

CBC goes soft on cheese controversy

On the April 16, 1996 CBC "The National," Peter Mansbridge began a report on the proposed regulatory amendment with the words: "Ottawa is getting choosy about the cheese that Canadians eat. Experts at Health Canada want to ban it if it's made from unpasteurized milk. They're worried about the bac-

teria in raw-milk cheese. As the CBC's Brenda Craig reports, they believe the bacteria can be hazardous to your health."

Figure A shows the CBC, CTV, and Globe and Mail coverage of the proposed cheese regulations from April 15 to April 18, 1996. Both networks and the newspaper reports focused their attention on the question of risk: does the consumption of raw-milk cheese pose a meaningful risk to human health?

On CBC, the message was a resounding "yes"-the public is at risk and further government intervention is a positive development (see figure B). Over 70 percent of CBC's analysis of the risks posed by raw-milk cheese echoed the government line.

On CBC's "Midday" Brent Bambury interviewed nutrition columnist Fran Berkoff. Bambury asked: "Have there been any instances, Fran, of people falling quite ill to disease caused by cheese made with raw, unpasteurized milk?"

Berkoff's response: "There have been reported outbreaks. Not a lot. In looking this over there's actually been cases in France where people have gotten very sick from eating raw cheese and raw-milk cheese and isolated instances where it happened." When asked if one should discard that "delicious wheel" of raw-milk cheese, Berkoff stated: "I would continue eating it. The likelihood is it's O.K."

Although a number of Berkoff's statements seemed to indicate her doubt as to whether these new stricter regulations are really required, she was openly supportive of the government: "All that really happened is that they're [the government] trying to make our cheese a little bit safer."

CTV questions the need for new regulations

In contrast, CTV provided more statements that questioned the risk posed by raw-milk cheese than opinions that supported the government's position that unpasteurized cheese should be banned. Fifty-six percent of CTV's coverage indicated that raw-milk cheese did not pose a health hazard, and that the present regulations sufficiently protected the Canadian public.

The Globe and Mail takes the middle ground

The Globe and Mail provided the most equitable coverage of the risks associated with raw-milk cheese. Forty-seven percent of assessments agreed that unpasteurized cheese posed a risk, 39 percent of the coverage indicated that raw-milk cheese was safe and 14 percent questioned the severity of the risk.

For example, in a front-page article on April 16, 1996, "Parmesan Proposal Raises a Stink", the Globe quoted Canadian Labour Minister Alfonso Gagliano: "We have been eating parmesan for hundreds of years . . . . Naturally, with modern technology certain bacteria may be detected better than in the past."

In a background piece, "More than a matter of taste, officials say," published April 18, 1996, Globe reporter John Allemang provided this summation: "It is a classic New World versus Old World battle, with the forces of health and hygiene in league against those who think a sublime, if somewhat stinky, food is worth a little risk.

CTV captures Quebec, consumer, and industry reactions

Another significant difference in the media reports was the amount of coverage devoted to the impact of the proposed regulation on various interest groups. Public reaction, including consumers, the Parti Quebecois, and various industry representatives, accounted for 6 percent of CBC, 41 percent of CTV and 25 percent of the Globe and Mail total coverage of the proposed amendment.

CTV broke the story nationally on April 15, 1996, focusing on how the issue was playing out in Quebec and the concerns of consumers. Lloyd Robertson began the report that evening: "Canadians may soon have trouble buying some of their favourite imported specialty cheeses. Health Canada is proposing tougher regulations for cheeses like parmesan and brie because they're made with raw or unpasteurized milk. Although officials cite health reasons, consumers aren't buying their concerns."

Globe examines Quebec's position

The Globe and Mail provided the most detailed coverage of Quebec's position and the concerns of the raw-milk cheese producers. On April 16, 1996, Anne McIlroy's report began: "Distinctive smells-not distinct society-had the Bloc Quebecois twitching their political whiskers yesterday. The news that new federal health regulations may ban imported parmesan and other strong-smelling unpasteurized cheeses in Canada has caused consternation in Quebec and put cheese on the parliamentary menu."

According to Agriculture Canada, the production and consumption of raw-milk cheeses occurs principally in Quebec. It is a "developing niche market" which was virtually non-existent five years ago and today produces 50,000 to 65,000 kilograms of raw-milk cheese per year. The total market value of raw-milk cheese is estimated to be between $6.2 and $9.3 million annually.

Health Canada examined the potential costs of the regulatory changes and concluded that costs to producers would be "limited" as most would already own the pasteurizing and labelling equipment required to meet the amendment. This contradicts the profile provided by Agriculture Canada in which enterprises involved in the production of raw-milk cheese are described as "small," with 2 establishments producing only raw-milk cheeses.

CBC, CTV, and the Globe and Mail gave limited coverage to the impact of the regulatory proposal on the developing industry. On April 15, 1996, "CTV News" quoted cheese retailer Irvin MacArthur: "We see an increase of between 10 and 15 percent demand in raw-milk products each year and this is completely due to the emphasis we've been putting on raw-milk products because they are safe."

On April 16, 1996 CBC's "The National" reporter Brenda Craig stated: "In Quebec, where there is a growing industry and demand for flavourful soft cheeses like raw-milk brie and camembert, consumers and merchants are outraged."

The Globe and Mail article published April 18, 1996, "Dingwall Accepts Dietary Dare," reported: "There is also a fledgling unpasteurized cheese industry in that province that would crumble under the new rules." On the same day, in the article "More than a matter of taste, officials say," the Globe was the only one of the three media examined to present the concerns of the National Dairy Council and the Dairy Farmers of Canada: "Canada's dairy producers see their reputation tied to the image of milk as a clean and healthy product. Any outbreak of cheese borne disease would compromise that reputation just as surely as a few cases of mad cow disease has tainted the entire British beef industry."

Media's contribution to the politics of risk

Fear of a consumer backlash, brought on by an outbreak of salmonella, listeria, or e. coli, and subsequently magnified by the propensity of the press who value dramatic flair above education, is arguably the primary impetus for the recent regulatory proposal.

In the Cato Institute publication, "Science Without Sense," Steven Milloy examined the characteristics that ensure mass publicity for studies which examine various risks to human health. The criteria are: (1) the risk should be unprovable, (2) the risk should be ubiquitous, (3) the risk should be intuitive to the public, (4) a good risk cannot be defended easily, (5) risks should be involuntary, (6) reducing or eliminating the risk should involve no perceptible personal sacrifice, and (7) pick on the unsuspecting. [Steven Milloy (1995), Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research, Cato Institute, Washington D.C., pp. 5-9.]

Milloy's book is not intended as a media study, but these seven attributes are a very apt description of the studies which frequent our airwaves and newspaper headlines. In 1993, the National Media Archive examined five years of television reports regarding the causes of cancer. ["Cancer and Health: TV Attention to the Environmental Causes of Cancer," On Balance, Volume 6, Number 7, 1993.]

We found that environmental factors (pesticides, man-made chemicals, man-made radiation, asbestos, ozone depletion, magnetic fields and general pollution) accounted for 68 percent of CBC's and 54 percent of CTV's total attention to the causes of cancer. These are all factors that are difficult to prove, apply to a broad segment of the population, are easy to relate to, and, perhaps most importantly, are involuntary.

These reports dominated the coverage regardless of the fact that environmental factors have been found to be insignificant in comparison to the personal decisions one makes with regards to health. Dr. Bruce Ames, a molecular biologist at the University of California, maintains that "cancer is fundamentally a degenerative disease of old age, although external factors can increase cancer rates (cigarette smoking) or decrease them (fruits and vegetables)." [Bruce N. Ames (1993), "The Topic of Cancer-Sierra Magazine vs. Bruce Ames," The American Spectator, June, p. 38.]

The predominant causes of cancer are diet, tobacco, alcohol, and sun tanning-all activities within the control of the individual. However, these factors constituted only 15 percent of CBC's and 25 percent of CTV's coverage of cancer-causing agents and activities.

The media's propensity to report studies which meet the characteristics outlined in Milloy's book, at the expense of studies which may be mundane but add to scientific knowledge, has rendered much of science impotent to affect public policy. Instead of focusing public attention on real science, the media bombards its audiences with one crisis after another-the most recent being the tale of the mad cows.

Governments inability to prioritize risk

The scientists at the Microbial Hazards Bureau of Health Canada who provided the evidence to support the proposed amendment to ban unpasteurized cheese spend their days carefully examining case studies and performing experiments. They are motivated by the desire to create a safer world; yet, even in their literature, reference is made to the economic benefits to be accrued by tightening the regulations. For example, one study concludes: "Recent outbreaks of salmonellosis have shed new light on the importance of cheese as a vehicle of human infection. . . . The growing problem of bacterial pathogens in fluid milk and milk products must be confronted if its potential impact on human health and on the economic viability of sectors in the food industry is to be minimized." [Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 48, No. 12 (December 1985), p. 1065.]

Since 1971, 14 outbreaks of diseases believed to have been caused by the consumption of raw-milk cheeses have been reported worldwide. These outbreaks resulted in 4,228 illnesses and 57 deaths. [Dr. J.-Y. D'Aoust, work in progress, Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Health Canada, 1996.]While any actions taken to improve human health are laudable, interventions cannot be considered in isolation.

The field that deals with this public policy issue is risk analysis-the dollars and cents of saving human lives. Risk analysis not usually popular among either government or the media-we are led to believe that life is priceless, and any words to the contrary are only uttered by the truly cold and heartless. Unfortunately, the resources which can be allocated to the establishment and enforcement of regulations, however well-intentioned, are limited, and should therefore be distributed in a manner that results in the maximum benefit in terms of lives saved and enhancements to the quality of life.

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has extensively studied U.S. regulations and their impact on the health of Americans. Tammy O. Tengs and John D. Graham examined 185 life-saving interventions, which they define as a "behavioral and/or technological strategy that reduces the probability of premature death among a specified target population," and concluded that there was little attempt to prioritize these regulations.

To illustrate their point, Tengs and Graham compared the money spent regulating fire retardant clothing with the cost of smoke detectors. "We regulate the flammability of children's clothing, spending $1.5 million per year of life saved, while some 30 percent of those children live in homes without smoke alarms, an investment that costs about $200,000 per year of life saved."

The study found that in the U.S. the total cost of intervention was $21.4 billion annually. This represented 56,700 lives saved per year, at a cost of $376,000 per life. Tengs and Graham estimated that if resources were reallocated, targeting interventions which produced maximum benefits, a total of 117,000 lives could be saved per year for the same amount of money.

The "Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement," published in Part I, Canada Gazette, March 30, 1996, provides a terse examination of the costs and benefits associated with the amendment of the Food and Drug Regulations: "It is anticipated that promulgation of this amendment will enhance the level of protection for Canadian consumers with concomitant economic and health benefits."

This proposed amendment is a minute component in the realm of regulation presently in place in Canada. However, given the current concern about the cost of government and the burden to taxpayers, the costs and benefits of further regulations are an important aspect of the story, but one which was not examined by the CBC, CTV or Globe and Mail reports.

Methodology

The reports examined in this study were CBC "The National," April 16, 1996; CBC "Midday," April 18, 1996; "CTV News," April 16 and 17, 1996; and the Globe and Mail from April 16 to April 18, 1996. Further information or details on the coding design and methods may be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.

Rejecting A Merger

EVER SINCE THE 1993 FEDERAL ELECTION campaign, where the Conservative Party was reduced to two seats in the House of Commons, speculation and discussion of a possible merger between the two parties on the right of the political spectrum have been bandied about. The most recent talk of such a merger came after the recent by-elections in March of this year. For example, CTV's Craig Oliver noted on March 25: "Well, the battle for second place was important tonight, and Reform won that. It seems to solidify their claim to be the national alternative to the Conservative party and it will add fuel to the fire of those in the Conservative Party, and in the Reform in particular, who want to see some kind of an alliance among the opposition parties." CBC also brought up the possible merger in its story, only to refute it. Jason Moscovitz said: "In the aftermath of the by-elections, the Reform party and the Conservative party are dismissing all talk of merger with more vigour than ever before."

Apart from repeating the denials from the respective parties, the coverage both on CBC television news and in newspaper and magazine editorials bordered on sentimental support for the conservative party. The tenor of this argument was contradictory to say the least considering that the Conservatives not only had a dismal showing in 1993 but also lost ground in the recent by-elections. The sense from the media is that the Conservatives have more public support than do the Reform. For example, in the February 4, 1996 "Sunday Report" panel, Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson made this claim: "It's rather ironic that Mr. Charest-it's true what Jason said-can't be heard or seen in the House of Commons, and yet I don't want to harp much on polls, they have their limitations; I simply note that a variety of polls taken in the last few months nationally, have shown the Conservative party at worst running even with Reform, and in some cases running better. So this has to be of some concern, I should think, to the Reform party. Here they have all these members in the House of Commons, they have ample opportunity to speak, the media seek their views all the time, and yet they don't seem to be going anywhere, in terms of public esteem, whereas the Conservatives, whose leader, as Jason just said, is neither seen nor heard, seems to be pipping them in the polls." Nonetheless, in the polls that count, Reform did beat the Conservatives.

In contrast, CTV has been covering the story with more favourable attention to the Reform than to the Conservatives. Roger Smith in his March 26 story on the possibility of a merger made this observation: "With a deal unlikely, the stage is set for another battle with the grass roots right, a battle that could knock out the Tories if they lose as badly as last time." In contrast, CBC placed its emphasis on Reform on April 9, which Sasa Petricic portrayed as threatening: "The memo also has a threat aimed directly at provincial Conservatives. If any Tory members of any provincial legislature dare to back the federal party, as some in Ontario did during the by-elections, they may pay for it. Reform threatens to run a candidate against them in the next provincial election." CTV did not report on this memo in its April 9 newscast.

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned differences, the networks have stayed relatively neutral on this question. In contrast, columnists have supported the Conservative Party. For example, Peter C. Newman in the April 22, 1996 issue of Maclean's magazine portrayed the story as Preston Manning trying to take over the Conservative Party: "There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Preston Manning can realize his dream of taking over the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and marching to victory in the 1997 general election." That was about the nicest thing Newman had to say about the Reform party in that column. Among other things, he wrote, "Manning's Reform party has attracted some of the looniest fruitcakes ever to emerge from the political swamps."

Although the networks did not include such colourful language in their reports, the stories did contain an underlying theme: Reform is on the periphery, and the Conservatives are mainstream. That view was presented because both networks quoted Jean Charest. For example, on March 26, CTV's Roger Smith said: "But Jean Charest insists Reform is too extreme to be a national alternative, and neither party is talking about a formal merger." Similarly, on April 11, CBC's "National" provided this clip of Charest: "We don't represent the extremist views of Preston Manning and the Reform party. We're not into whipping; we don't believe in impeachment of a prime minister by a non-elected governor general; saying one thing and cynically acting in a different way."

What seemed peculiar about the coverage was the negative attention given to Reform and the neutral coverage of the Tories. On a purely superficial level, one would expect that both parties would be given an equal number of positive and negative assessments. Or at best, they would be treated neutrally. At worst, one would expect, given their political fortunes, that the Conservatives would be criticized, not the Reform party.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.