There is an important national conversation happening about food choices, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the long-term consequences of unhealthy diets. There is a strange contradiction however, in how we think and communicate about food risk. 

Tell consumers that a fresh fruit or vegetable might present a food safety risk—Salmonella, E. coli O157, Cyclospora—and many are remarkably quick to stop eating it. Sometimes they avoid an entire category of produce, even when the actual risk is extremely limited and that context is included somewhere in the message, if not the headline. 

But consumers still must eat. 

And too often, concern about fresh produce becomes permission to choose less healthy or highly processed foods instead – as though this represents “risk management.” That happens despite a well-established understanding of the short- and long-term health concerns associated with diets dominated by these foods. 

Why? 

Part of it is psychology. A foodborne illness outbreak is immediate and vivid. There is a pathogen, a recall and alarming headlines. The satisfaction from eating junk food can also be immediate. The health consequences of poor dietary choices, by contrast, tend to accumulate quietly over years and are much easier to ignore. 

There may be a less comfortable explanation too – people often like these foods (think guilty pleasures), and we are remarkably good at embracing information that validates a choice we already wanted to make. This is especially true when that choice might otherwise make us feel guilty. 

If fruits and vegetables suddenly sound risky, people do not stop eating. They substitute something else, and that substitute is not always another fruit or vegetable. 

“See? Fresh food isn’t safe either – I will eat the (fill in the blank on guilty food choice) instead.” 

I hear that more and more these days as people rationalize their consumption choices. The problem is that the existence of a potential risk in one food does not mean the risks in the alternative are less. 

There is no zero-risk food. Fresh produce can carry some limited food safety risk. So can almost any other food. And some of those alternatives carry additional short- and long-term health risks. 

What matters in food choice is magnitude, probability and perspective. Ultimately, it comes down to whether the food replacing one with a perceived risk represents a truly lower overall risk to the consumer. That is the part of the conversation we rarely hear enough about – the risk of the alternative choice. 

This matters as we intensify debates around UPFs, food dyes, contaminants, etc. in the broader food system. We cannot encourage people to eat more whole foods (including fresh produce) while communicating about risks associated with fresh foods in ways that make them seem uniquely dangerous. Or, more importantly, more dangerous than the food alternatives. 

Provide perspective. Don’t pretend any food is risk-free. 

Fresh produce can on (relatively) rare occasion be the vehicle for serious foodborne illness, and the industry continues to work on these complex agricultural challenges in order to make it safer. 

Eating fruit and vegetables remains one of the healthiest dietary choices we can encourage. 

Fresh produce can carry some very limited risk and still be the healthier and less risky choice.  

Both Can Be True. Nuance Matters. 

If we are going to have a serious conversation about UPFs and other overall food-related risks, we also need a better conversation about relative risk. Otherwise, in trying to protect people from what might make them sick today, we may inadvertently encourage them to eat more of what we already know is not helping them stay healthy tomorrow.