The first thing to appreciate is the scale of the recall, with approximately 15,000,000 pounds of product involved according to the USDA. By my estimate that would be about 16.3 million individual cans. Not only that, but product manufactured as far back as December 2008 is included.

The USDA also states that the problem was discovered in the course of a routine warehouse inspection and a subsequent investigation. So one could speculate that there might have been some visible defects in the stored product. Might the inspectors have spotted some swollen or 'blown' cans? That would certainly lead to an investigation and could well indicate possible under-processing. The action taken by Campbell's may point to this and the size of the recall suggests that possible under-processing could not be ruled out over a long period of production. On the other hand, if 18 months production had actually been under-processed I think it would have been obvious a lot sooner. The most worrying thing is that the problem apparently cannot be narrowed down to a single batch or day's production.

Campbell's says that there is no indication that any under-processed product reached consumers and that the recall is being undertaken "in an abundance of caution". Personally I think that Campbell's has acted very responsibly. The Company found a problem, investigated it and then took appropriately precautionary action to protect consumers. I'm also certain that they will put in place measures to ensure that the problem cannot recur. But the incident does illustrate the potential for spread of food-borne contamination when large volumes - 16 million is a lot of cans - of widely distributed product are involved. That is why such strict food safety control is needed in the food industry, not just from the regulators, but just as importantly, from manufacturers themselves.

But some research published this week reminded me that there are two sides to every story. Workers in Taiwan found that levels of certain dioxin-like compounds produced by industrial waste incineration seemed to be present at significantly higher levels in free-range eggs than in eggs from caged birds. Although these findings are based on a very small number of samples and look to have been skewed by one heavily contaminated sample, there does seem to be something in the report and the authors say it may have food safety implications. Microbiological surveys also suggest that free-range chickens are more likely to be infected with Campylobacter and Salmonella too - not surprising as both pathogens are often present in the general environment and in wild birds and animals. Not only that, but the environmental impact of free-range chickens may be larger than that of caged birds, depending on how one does the calculations. Some experts hold the apparently paradoxical view that the more intensive the farming method, the smaller the overall environmental cost.

All this makes for a tricky purchasing decision. Pay a bit more for happy chickens, but a potentially less safe product and a size twelve carbon footprint, or pay less and get less risk, less impact on the planet, but a side order of animal welfare guilt. Nothing is ever easy.

The football World Cup also kicks off this week, which allows the organisers of Food Safety Week 2010 to target their efforts on the dangers of the barbecues and other forms of al fresco dining likely to take place as people get together to watch England try once again to repeat the triumph of 1966. Certainly the barbecue is a high-risk environment as far as food poisoning is concerned, especially when overseen by football-crazed men with limited culinary expertise and a predilection for consuming heroic quantities of beer. I have attended numerous events over the years where tucking into chicken legs charred into oblivion on the outside and raw on the inside was like playing gastrointestinal Russian roulette. But it wouldn't be very polite to refuse or point out the dangers, so it's a question of hoping for the best or pretending to be a vegetarian.

I suspect that adults who are ignorant about how to avoid poisoning their guests are unlikely to change their behaviour however persuasive Food Safety Week may be. On the other hand I do believe that educating consumers is one of the keys to reducing the incidence of food poisoning. Perhaps the answer is to put food safety and food hygiene firmly on the school curriculum. If every child left school with the equivalent of a basic food safety qualification, I'm certain it would cut food poisoning rates dramatically, although it still won't help us to win the World Cup.

This may be about to change in the wake of the recent O145 outbreak linked to shredded Romaine lettuce, which affected at least 26 people in five US states during April and May this year. Suddenly a lot of commentators and politicians have woken up to the fact that there are other VTEC strains to worry about besides O157. It's a pity that it needs three people to suffer kidney failure before this happens, but a greater awareness of the danger of non-O157 VTEC must be a good thing. What might be less of a good thing is the rather knee-jerk reaction that has followed. According to an article in the NY Times, a Senator from New York is planning to introduce a bill classifying various VTEC strains as adulterants and making their presence in ground beef illegal. Meat producers will also be required to start testing for them.

There is certainly strong evidence that the main source of VTEC is in the guts of livestock, especially cattle. But does that mean that the best way to tackle the problem is to ban their presence in beef? There are reasons why such a measure might be premature. For one, there are no rapid tests available for non-O157 VTEC strains as yet. Secondly, as US meat producers have pointed out, while non-O157 VTEC might originate in cattle, there is little concrete evidence that the reported outbreaks were linked to beef. Therein lies the problem. Too little is known about these organisms and how they contaminate foods. What is needed is some sound scientific research to fill in the gaps, risk analysis, plus rapid and reliable test methods. Without these, 'blanket ban' style legislation is unlikely to achieve anything other than higher costs and a lot of red tape. It's a bit like trying to cure a pain in your big toe by hitting your foot with a mallet.