Reducing the Risk:
Protecting Both Apple Cider Safety and Small Apple Farms

Kate Demong

Background

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed mandating pasteurization as an option for improving the safety of fresh apple cider. There has been only one death in the United States linked to apple cider (in October, 1996), and, I contend, unless a formal risk assessment proves otherwise, this extreme regulatory measure is arguably unnecessary.

Goals and Objectives

The primary goal of this paper is to analyze the controversy over pasteurization of apple cider, thereby highlighting the conflict in the United States between simultaneously protecting 1) the safety of the nation’s food supply, and 2) the businesses of small farmers. Whenever appropriate, the paper focuses specifically on how different aspects of the cider issue relate to the State of Vermont in particular. Objectives include shedding light on three questions. They are:

• What has motivated the FDA’s arguably extreme response to the issue of apple cider safety?
• How has the apple industry already been affected by the E. coli scare, and what are the probable consequences of a pasteurization mandate?
• What are the general public’s attitudes about and awareness of cider safety?

I am personally interested in the future of agriculture in Vermont because I was raised on my parent’s apple farm in Shoreham, Vermont.

Methodology

Both secondary and primary research were employed to explore my central questions.

Secondary Research

I performed an extensive secondary literature review. This review focused on five principal areas. They included: 1) national and local media coverage, 2) internet websites and world-wide forum for discussion of apple-related issues, 3) FDA documents and publications, 4) apple industry documents, publications, and correspondence, and 5) published literature on small farms.

Primary Research

Because issues surrounding the safety of apple cider are very current, they have not yet been cohesively analyzed or discussed within published writings. Therefore, I conducted primary survey research with two populations: 1) Vermont cider producers, and 2) cider consumers in Vermont and urban/suburban areas outside of Vermont.

Surveying Cider Producers

Twenty-five (25) of the estimated thirty (30) cider producers in Vermont were surveyed by mail to develop a comprehensive account of the probable economic, cultural, and environmental effects of a pasteurization mandate on a cider-producing region of the country. Twenty-three (23) respondents were non-pasteurizing producers, and two (2) were pasteurizing producers.

A total of forty-eight (48) cider consumers- twenty-four (24) from Vermont, and twenty-four (24) from urban/suburban areas outside of Vermont were surveyed in face-to-face interviews or by phone to assess their perceptions of risk from cider consumption and their attitudes regarding mandatory pasteurization.

Key Findings

The six key findings from both primary and secondary research are:

• The E. coli scare has already had a negative financial impact on both pasteurizing and non-pasteurizing cider producers in Vermont.
• Of the producers in Vermont who do not currently pasteurize, seventy-eight percent (78%) said they would go out of business if pasteurization was mandated because they would not be able to afford the costly equipment. They shared numerous reasons on why this loss would be detrimental to land-use and culture in the State.
• All surveyed producers, and almost all surveyed consumers, think that apple cider is not a high-risk food. Non-pasteurizing producers are confident that they can produce safe cider.
• The vast majority of the surveyed consumers thought that the safety benefits of pasteurization would not outweigh the consequential loss of small cider producing businesses, consumer choice, and a quality product with a distinctive taste. Consumer opinion is fluid; although many originally said that pasteurization was a good idea, but once further informed of the consequences of a pasteurization mandate, many no longer supported the regulation.
• There is much controversy between and within the government, the scientific community, the media, the apple industry, and retailers and consumers about the issue of apple cider safety. This calls for more scientific evidence on the real risk of fresh cider, economic analysis of the consequences of pasteurization, and increased education for safe manufacturing practices among producers, as well as consumer education.
• My research concludes that in the case of apple cider, the FDA is not regulating in response to sound scientific evidence, but rather in response to the media and to other social and political motivations.

Conclusions

Conclusions drawn from my research findings will be sent to the FDA when the Agency’s final proposal for increasing the safety of fresh juices is published in the Federal Register; the proposal’s release is expected by May, 1998. Conclusions are that safe cider can be achieved while simultaneously preserving both small cider mills and small apple farming operations within the United States’ agricultural landscape. This will be most possible given four conditions. They are:

• The scientific community must determine if there is ample evidence to demonstrate that measures other than pasteurization can adequately improve cider safety.
• Small farmers need to make known to the FDA the reasons why cider mills should be protected, and this includes the economic implications of proposed regulations.
• The government needs to regulate based on the level of real risk that cider actually poses.
• Informed consumers will have to accept the level of risk that unpasteurized cider poses so that a market for fresh cider remains.