Premature Pontification

Jumping to conclusions in health matters may have adverse side effects 15

The past week, the Netiverse has erupted with stories linking the Granjas Carroll confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) near La Gloria, Vera Cruz, Mexico, with the outbreak of a strain of H1N1 influenza, commonly called “swine flu,” that has triggered concerns about possible flu pandemic reminiscent of the one that claimed tens of millions of lives between 1918 and 1920. Outlets such as Grist, Huffington Post, and Daily Kos have contributed to the eruption, as have some members of the old-line print and broadcast media, but I find much of the reportage at this point troubling.

Why? Because I don’t see any beef—or pork—yet.

What I see is proximity, coincidence, and correlation being confused with causality, but without any evidence that the virus has been present in any of Granjas Carroll’s CAFO sites, we have nothing to support the hypothesis that the current outbreak started there.

Granjas Carroll is a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, which is based in my current home state of Virginia (full disclosure). Smithfield Foods is notorious for its CAFO operations, which I am firmly convinced by a substantial amount of evidence is responsible for a lot of environmental problems in the regions where they occur. The CAFO operations may even be “breeding grounds” for a variety of diseases. This is not the question at hand.

The question at hand is whether the Granjas Carroll CAFO operations in Vera Cruz are responsible for this disease outbreak. The distinction is important. Our highest priority—in the immediate term—is not eliminating the possibility of any possible disease outbreak in the future. The highest priority is in stopping the potential pandemic in front of us now—the outbreak that is spreading and sickening and killing. To do that, it helps to know where and how it started.

Mind you, the Granjas Carroll CAFOs are legitimate suspects. It is possible that the H1N1 strain of concern emerged there and spread to the surrounding human population via sick workers, contaminated waste, or flies that pick up virus particles from fecal matter in waste pools and deposit them on someone’s dinner nearby. The fact that Patient Zero, 4-year-old Edgar Hernandez, lives in a town near one of the suspect CAFOs adds a plausible connection. In addition the fact that hundreds of people came down with a flu-like illness in the past two months likewise lend credence to the Smithfield connection. The hypothesis looks about as solid as any hypothesis can be.

Nevertheless, in science and medicine, a researcher has to put his pet hypothesis to the test. Hypotheses are tested against evidence, and those that don’t fit—cannot explain—the evidence must be cast aside. A researcher has to reject all alternative hypotheses before being able to accept, or at least get other researchers to accept, his or her preferred hypothesis. Journalists covering scientific and medical matters should keep this fact in mind.

What are some alternative hypotheses here?

* The outbreak may not have originated in La Gloria, Vera Cruz, or Mexico. Hernandez can only retain his Patient Zero title as long as no earlier case of this strain of virus can be found. Given that these searches for Patient Zero are conducted after the fact, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to identify the index (first) case. Hernandez’s mother said that dozens, if not hundreds, of people in the La Gloria area fell ill before Hernandez did. It is likely, then that he is merely the first confirmed case, not the first case. If we cannot be sure he is the first person to be infected by this particular strain of influenza, we likewise cannot be sure that anyone in La Gloria was the first person infected. The search thus expands throughout Vera Cruz, throughout Mexico, throughout the world. Only time and a lot of detective work will tell if the outbreak started in Smithfield’s neighborhood.

* Despite the moniker “swine” flu, this particular strain may not have originated in swine. Reports about the genetic characteristics of this strain are rather confusing, but reports from people actually sequencing the virus (and posting their data on the mailing list ProMED-mail) suggest a mix of swine viruses only—with an mixture of genetic material from both North American strains and Eurasian strains. (This information is subject to change, though, as more samples are sequenced.) So far, the evidence seems to point solely toward pork, except for a basic fact of influenza biology. The flu viruses can often infect multiple species—such as pigs, birds, and humans—and the have a tendency to swap genetic material with other viruses also present in host cells. It is entirely possible that the mutations that produced the H1N1 strain involved in this outbreak originated in a species other than swine. We could be the source.

There is also some contrary evidence to consider. Smithfield Foods officials and Mexican agriculture officials all say there has been no evidence of swine flu in either the animals or the workers at the Granjas Carroll CAFOs. This leads to the following hypotheses: 1) they are lying; 2) they are telling the truth, but they had not been looking for the right evidence; or 3) they are telling the truth.

Personally, I’m not inclined to embrace hypothesis No. 1 until someone finds evidence of deceit. I could accept No. 2, but it is pretty damned unlikely that a flu outbreak could happen at operations as large as the ones near La Gloria without somebody noticing something. If hypothesis No. 3 survives all challenges, it rules out any connection with this particular flu outbreak.

Finally, why is this important?

My colleague Merritt Clifton, in an essay published yesterday, discussed the importance of credibility among journalists. If all the hype proves a bust—if Granjas Carroll is exonerated—the journalists look like unethical, scandal-mongering, can’t-get-their-facts-right fools. In addition, environmental and animal-rights activists who talk up the story—even if motivated by sincere concern about the environmental effects of CAFOs—will look like a bunch of Chicken Littles crying out “The Sky is Falling!” and passing the hat for contributions from the faithful, or at least the very, very nervous.

Michael Crichton, in his book, “State of Fear,” made a lot of money making environmentalists look like greenie-weenie-psycho-terrorists bent on the destruction of civilization as we know it. Far too many people in our society believe that, too. Those concerned about the environmental effect of CAFOs should not reinforce that impression. If the accusations turn out to be wrong now, people are less likely to listen to legitimate allegations in the future.

Some of my colleagues have argued that journalists could use the flu outbreak as a peg to discuss the perils of CAFOs. I argue, however, that if the news peg proves to be faulty, then readers will question everything else in the story that follows. Personally, I would rather not have mistakes in my work inoculate an industry against legitimate criticism for its environmental malpractice.

Journalists should investigate. Journalists should ask hard, unpleasant questions. But journalists should retain (and display) a healthy dose of skepticism until they turn up evidence to back up a connection between an industry practice and an environmental or health problem in question.

Consider this analogy: Anyone can call a politician a crook. It means nothing. A good journalist, however, waits until he catches the politician paying for private expenses with public funds - and runs a photo of the paycheck on the front page. The journalist won’t even need to use the “c” word. The appropriate conclusion will be obvious.

The worst consequence has nothing to do with credibility, however. It has to do with lives. Preoccupation with a false lead in a disease outbreak like this distracts researchers from finding the source of the illness.

Preoccupation with a false lead delays adequate or appropriate actions that could slow or stop the outbreak; likewise it may prompts people to take inadequate or inappropriate defense measures that may make the outbreak worse. I’ll close with a cautionary example.

In 1854, a cholera outbreak that sickened hundreds in a matter of days terrified the city of London. A physician, Dr. John Snow, and clergyman, the Rev. Henry Whitehead, determined—with damning evidence—that the outbreak was triggered by contaminated water from a pump in the Soho neighborhood. Most public health officials at the time, however, were convinced that cholera was caused by miasma—“bad air.” Acting under the belief that “all smell is disease,” they blamed living conditions (and moral failings) of the working poor—the group most heavily affected by the epidemic—for the epidemic. The emphasis on smell placed the focus on obvious nuisances rather than the more subtle, actual cause.

Unfortunately, policies designed to remove the smelly air—by collecting sewage and dumping it into the Thames—made cholera outbreaks more likely by contaminating the drinking water of millions of city residents.

Let’s not make a similar mistake in Vera Cruz. Millions of lives may be at stake.

Lawrence is a journalist, scientist, and author of two books. He lives in Mechanicsville, Va., and fantasizes about making a living as a scuba diver.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. enviroperk Posted 8:08 pm
    30 Apr 2009

    I read this with envy knowing that I could not be as eloquent in making the key point. Not to disparage the work, motives or credibility of those attempting to make a connection, but when journalism intersects scientific method, we must realize a different standard applies. Scientific credibility is critical to effect change in matters that involve science.

    Permalink

  2. Scott G Posted 8:41 pm
    30 Apr 2009

    David, I'm glad you wrote this. For all the credible science environmentalism has at its back, the rush to pin swine flu on CAFOs is nothing but damaging. I, like many other Gristers, could be described as an environmentalist. Seeing as industrial ag has been a long time target for environmentalists, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be really really interested to see the national media draw a firm connection between CAFO's and disease in humans. It would give alot of weight to our arguments.
    But that's not science. That's making the facts fit the theory, not the other way around. Good science usually means objectivity, and enviros are too close to this issue to start calling for causality. I'm glad the hypothesis is out there-- as it very well might be true-- but let's keep it at that. Let the science speak for itself first.

    Permalink

  3. bachan1 Posted 6:49 am
    01 May 2009



    hiiiiiiiiii
            dear friend's i read your comment's and post's they are nice and effective but i want to know more about something if you tell me some more imfo. or data about this it's very nice to me and thank's a lot dear.............
     
    ====================
    sam
    ==================== Drug Intervention New Hampshire

    Permalink

  4. Chez Jake Posted 9:33 am
    01 May 2009

    A very well written and thought out post. Thanks very much. It's good to see that Grist is trying to get the importance of accuracy in reporting after Tom Philpott's initial inflammatory and poorly reasoned post.

    Another thing that needs emphasizing over and over (preferably in every post related to the possible origin of this H1N1 virus in swine) is that there is *no* risk of contracting the virus from eating properly prepared pork -- that's even on the CDC's fact sheet:
    http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/key_facts.htm

    Permalink

  5. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 11:05 am
    01 May 2009

    That only needs emphasizing if your prime concern is selling pork. I would also point out that the CDC does NOT say that swine flu isn't present in pork. In fact, they imply that it is:"Cooking pork to an internal temperature of 160°F kills the swine flu virus as it does other bacteria and viruses."Well, that means that the pork may indeed harbor swine flu, either from the pig or from the packers. So really, you would need to handle the pork with latex gloves and disinfect any kitchen surfaces (and/or cutting boards) that the meat came in contact with. Maybe skipping pork for now isn't such a bad idea.

    Permalink

  6. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 9:21 pm
    01 May 2009

    As an aside, one of my wife's work partners was just diagnosed with swine flu. Luckily, the bug is not proving dangerous now that it has left Mexico. She and her family will ride it out at home with everyone taking five days worth of Tamiflu as a preventative measure. Anyone exposed to her while she was at work is also on a preventative dose. My wife works different days and was not exposed or I would be able to tell you what Tamiflu tastes like.

    Permalink

  7. maria-ashot Posted 5:12 am
    02 May 2009

    Yes and no, Mr. Lawrence. There are hair-splitters doing a little dance to get people to stop applying any kind of public pressure on Smithfield Foods and other meat producers that might cause conservative farmers from taking a good hard look at their entire industry, at what they are doing to themselves, the animals in the care, their neighbours and ultimately the entire planet we are all stuck together on. Such hair-splitters are simply deliberately trying to get in the way of the general public discovering the basic truth of this story: that corporate farming, with an obsessive preoccupation on profit margins, and an absolutely irrational attempt to view animals -- living organisms -- as inanimate widgets instead of complex biological microsystems, is having a seriously deleterious effect not merely on regional ecosystems "somewhere not-in-my-backyard" but on global health now; and that failures to observe eternally applicable ancient fundamental laws about how household animals are to be safely treated leads to diseases that can, in fact, threaten all of us, on a moment's notice, with a pandemic.Even a deadly one. Even one that could reduce the global population significantly (probably a good thing from the planetary perspective) and right quickly, before we could properly mount an effective response.Yes, in this case, thankfully we can say: it seems we have been spared that ultimate scenario. We are getting a useful dress rehearsal instead. And one good reason may well be the dramatic response by epidemiologists, scientists, concerned parents (also a useful demographic, by the way) and some media people.And a handful of politicians with guts and brains.But are we in fact "fear-mongering" and "smearing" a pig-feces farm for dispersing viruses, disease and pollution?No, Mr. Lawrence, we are not. Your article makes no mention of Granjas Carroll's interest in methane collection for power generation.It is all over their business profile, however. Smithfield Foods may in fact, in an effort to be green, have fallen for another crazy idea: that consciously increasing methane concentrations by overproducing methane and then converting it into electricity is a wonderful, even "green" business model. It is not: methane is extremely harmful to human lungs.The methane-harvesting idea has contributed to the fact that air quality is extremely poor in the target area we have homed in on, including you, Mr. Lawrence.Everyone is dissecting virus strains, but no one is reporting on such basic facts as the air quality in the Vera Cruz area, the water quality in the areas around CAFOs in Mexico specifically. No one is looking very closely at all at the source of the initial complaint by the local people. Whereas they really ought to be: a full, thorough investigation is in order.You can make your argument, Mr Lawrence, that we have been "smearing" pristine Smithfield Farms operations once we have the data published on composition of the air & water in the areas where there has evidently been a cluster of deaths under unclear conditions.BBC has also reported from Mexican doctors that there were instructions to specifically tailor death certificates & morbidity reports to provide "desirable" or "innocuous" causes of death that would not hurt Mexico or perhaps even the corporate interests. Such acts of falsification are of course highly problematic to say the least from a health & safety standpoint, not to mention a journalist's interest in getting the full story.In a word, the numbers we are being given are known to be inaccurate; because they are inaccurate, they raise questions. Get the accurate numbers out there then, using all forensic & investigative tools, and give us numbers and projections that have some credibility. For every officially ascertained case of illness, there are how many likely out there in the community? 1000? 10 000? 100 000? Sickened people are not all reporting, but deaths are much harder to hide. So how does the chart for deaths in Mexico since 2009 began compare to previous years and regional patterns? How sure are we of causes of these deaths? If not the swine flu, then what caused the excess deaths?As one of many environmental activists busy now for over 30 years raising the level of awareness of the damage uncontrolled, unrestreained, unselfcritical, wasteful human activity does to the planet that contains our collective future as a human race, a global society and even as a Civilisation, I will not allow the drumbeat of concern to be dampened down out of excessive preoccupation with the sensitive reputation of meat, whether it originates in the US, Argentina (where I was born and the best practices in cattle-ranching and farming remain in effect), China, or Europe. It is up to the people who go into the business of producing and distributing meat products to make sure they are the best, cleanest, safest -- and only then the most profitable.Americans have always had industry leaders. An example is the Apple company. In the field they have chosen, they are the best -- and they prove American firms still have it to be the best.But other American companies, automakers, fast food behemoths such as McD now on record as praising Smithfield, or mega-meat manufacturers such as Smithfield in this case, have chosen to take the easy route, producing basically lower-quality products wrapped in the US flag, with fancy packaging and big media campaigns used to keep people addicted to something that is basically not good enough to remain competitive.Survival of the fittest would apply here, Mr. Lawrence, as it does elsewhere.Making American journalists feel guilty (as some are trying to) for joining in with foreign media people who are noticing US food products are not nearly as good as those from Europe, and obviously now not as safe, is not smart. Eventually we have to face the music, as the auto industry has had to.And with basic foods, the opportunity to harm is even greater than with autos.If a person or business cannot comprehend Rule One of Animal Husbandry: No animal carrying a disease is ever to be allowed to be used for human consumption," -- well, they need to go into another industry.Because, since the dawn of civilisation, this basic principle has been well understood by all humans. And it was only in 20th century that Americans, armed with exceptionalism and pharmaceuticals, believed they could change the rules.You can't. Animals for purposes of human consumption need to be raised in small enough herds to be carefully managed by enough qualified persons with education in the discipline, and vets, that any animal carrying a disease (even a 'mere' animal disease, and even without showing symptoms), has to be culled or isolated from other creatures until it recovers. But above all it is never to be allowed to enter the human food supply.EVER. That was the understanding of our ancestor farmers, and that was how the human race survived long enough to get to this huge population. Because they followed this overriding principles. Sick animals may be good enough to treat and shelter and love as pets for their natural life, BUT YOU NEVER ARE TO EAT THEM. Only the flesh of animals who have been shown to be 100% in perfect health may be consumed.Those are the rules for land-based farming and animal husbandry. They never changed.Corporate farming of animals consciously attempts to get around this basic principle, the most fundamental one of all. The result is simply an obscenity, a disaster waiting to happen. Animals are not bricks or bits of plastic: it really is that simple! There are rules of physics, and there are rules of microbiology, and there are rules of animal husbandry, and there are rules of public health. Microorganisms can kill you. The intersection of all the rules is the safe zone wherein you may operate. That is how it works in this Universe, and if Smithfield Foods or any other meat-producer wants different rules they should find themselves a different Universe.Meat will become expensive, you will wail, if we do things according to your rules! Of course, Mr Lawrence. Meat should be more expensive, and consumed more rarely, and it MUST be 100% safe, non-toxic, non-polluting.Yes, fast food businesses shall have to dramatically alter their business model, because, obviously Cheap Meats Kill. And so meat has to be grown as it is in Argentina, or in Japan on some elite beef farms, or in France  where people still fight for the right of farmers to do the job the proper way instead of the American-inspired way: meat for human consumption has to cost a whole lot more than it does. And a lot less of it needs to be in our bellies.That would be the healthy and intelligent, and by the way, earth-friendly, thing to do. Please do not help those who will stop at nothing to bury the plain facts -- the age-old truths known to our illiterate ancestors who farmed! -- in support of an unsustainable American laissez-faire economic theory that has brought the entire world to a devastating crisis, now revealing itself to be not just a problem with the US way of banking, but also with the US way of farming.We have known for some time there are problems with the US way of news reporting, and with the US way of educating, and with the US way of providing health care... Please let those Americans who are in fact still committed to being part of the Solution continue to look truthfully at the roots of the Problem. Because if we don't in fact change profoundly (and it seems unlikely the current White House actually welcomes profound change, rather than mere cosmetic change), we will all perish. And not in some distant future, but in fact quite soon.Intelligence has to remain consistent with logic, and insist on getting the optimal outcome, not another stop-gap measure that simply accepts annual, seasonal, mutating, worrisome, expensive influenza epidemics worldwide as the necessary byrpoduct of "the American Way of Doing Things."If we can clean up our farms, shall we have less disease? Wouldn't it be fascinating if the answer turned out to be yes?    B         

    Permalink

  8. David M. Lawrence's avatar

    David M. Lawrence Posted 3:12 pm
    02 May 2009

    Well, Maria, shouting down those who aren't ideologically pure is a sure way to make the world a better place. Especially when you shout them down with "evidence" that is later proven to be false.  The masses who aren't as well informed as you soon learn to tune you out because you've demonstrated, in the limited sample of their experience, that you don't know what you're talking about.It appears you have misunderstood my point. If you want to evangelize about the perils of industrial agriculture, by all means do so.  But you will reap more converts if you drop the hysteria and if you base the argument on solid, proven facts.  If the Granjas Carroll operation is not the source of this particular influenza outbreak -- and evidence is leaning that way at the moment -- you have done your cause a significant disservice.  You will have discarded any credibility on this issue, and if you're wrong in this matter, why should anyone pay attention to you in others?Another thing to be recognized is that no human activity is 100 percent safe, 100 percent non-toxic, and 100 percent non-polluting.  Yes, we should minimize our environmental footprint to the greatest extent possible, but the only way to reduce our footprint to zero is to go extinct.  Even then it would take millennia for evidence of our existence to disappear.Agriculture, which has made the tremendous growth in human population over the past few thousand years possible, has some adverse effects.  One of them is serving as a source for epidemic diseases.  Many of the scourges that have plagued humanity in the past originated as some kind of pathogenic jump from one host species to another.  The closeness of humans and domesticated animals made such jumps more likely. The fact that such jumps still happens today should come as no surprise.Now, if these jumps occur more frequently now than in the past, we have a problem.  At this point however, a far smaller percentage of the human population takes ill and dies from epidemic diseases than in the past 10,000 years or so. I'm not sure we can make push the "industrial agriculture"="demise of civilization" too far without looking rather adrift from reality -- and, therefore, not very credible.If you want to persuade the masses, facts work best.  Any falsehood, whether intentional or otherwise, rebounds to the detriment of whatever cause one espouses.Personally, I'd like to see industrial agriculture clean up its act, but I know I'd have a hell of a time inspiring others to work for change in the system if I often make high-profile, hysterical, and ultimately disproven charges against it.Dave

    Permalink

  9. maria-ashot Posted 1:38 pm
    03 May 2009

    Do you consider Jeremy Rifkin "hysterical," Mr. Lawrence? Or Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma? Or Ralph Nader? Or Jerry Brown? Or Ross Perot, who objected to the exportation of American business operations to countries that lack US regulatory standards, where safety is harder to enforce? And what about Al Gore? Or Leonardo Di Caprio, who made The Eleventh Hour? Or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? Or John Edwards? Are they all "hysterics" because they have all pointed out that American business has not been doing enough to live up to its claims of world supremacy and the right to "lead on climate change," as Hillary Clinton recently reiterated on behalf of the Administration of President Obama?What about such gripping investigations of egregious industrial malfeasance as have become classics of consciousness-raising, works such as A Civil Action and Erin Brockovich, all meticulously researched and based on actual events, actual cases? Are these also the works of "hysterical" Americans? Of course not. They are the works of serious, informed human beings of high intelligence and great ethical commitment, with serious credentials and global reach.I am just a person you know nothing about, with a Christian name it is easy to categorize as situating me south of the border. I am proud to have been born in Argentina, where ranchers and farmers still know how to work with animals; and I am also proud to be an American -- a particular thriving breed of American, called an American-with-a-conscience.All you can do to dismiss my arguments is to label me "hysterical": an all-too-common, though now generally discredited way of abusing a female voice (as you of course now the very epithet hysterical derives from the old Greek word for womb, and is the conventional way to slur a female for getting uppity and not keeping her place in this nice male-run world that is now at risk).Only when it comes to looking after the sick, it is generally the women who wind up having to clean up the messes of the power elites.You can call me "hysterical," Mr. Lawrence, and I can call you a "male supremacist" and I think that just about leaves us square. It does not make an iota of difference in the problem, and it does not lead to a single cleaner pigsty, unfortunately.So let's just get away from all the ridiculous name-calling, and be sensible here. Especially since you know absolutely nothing -- zero -- about who I am, my education, my credentials in this field, my record as an activist.Let's just look at the situation from the most basic logic.CAFOs confine animals. Not so that there is no oxygen, but pretty thoroghly. When methane is to be extracted -- harvested -- from their natural digestive processes, there is a tendency to make the confinement pretty close, pretty thorough. That makes the operations "cost-effective." This aspect of CAFOs has been well-described by Pollan, by Rifkin; it has been commented on extensively by people like Nader and even Edwards. These are serious people with credentials, whether you like their politics or not.As all the news reports have indicated and no one denies, Smithfield Foods is committed to metane-harvesting, and its pigs are kept in closed quarters with minimal ventilation. The stench is so severe (and the sight must be so revolting) that Granjas Carroll and Smithfield Foods have not yet allowed any reporters to visit their Vera Cruz facility. I have yet to read any reports from any WHO officials or other international teams allowed to inspect the facilities on the inside.Smithfield Foods has made public statements via the media asserting vociferously that their "pork is safe to eat when cooked properly." The US government, our President, and a variety of world bodies including WHO and the UN have come forward with strong statements disassociating pork products from the flu scare (or trying to), to make sure the industry is not in any way hurt.Smithfield Foods has made large donations of meat to food pantries serving struggling Americans, and this has also been in the news. It appears commendable. And I would like to thank them and congratulate them for their philanthropy if they can satisfy me that methane-cured pork is actually healthy and safe to eat!Because, excuse me, if herds of as many as 10 000 or more pigs are kept in confined facilities breathing an atmosphere that is highly saturated with methane gas, that would mean they are essentially being "methane-smoked" on the hoof, prior to slaughter and sale as food.We know that when a living creature consumes a lot of alcohol, or nicotine, eventually their bodily tissue is affected by the presence of these substances in high concentrations in their system over a long period of time.We know that when we smoke ham or bacon or any meat, we expose it to high concentrations of fumes to achieve a certain flavor, and other effects of preserving the safety of the meat for consumption (at least according to traditional methods; now, sometimes, it is simply the additive called "smoked flavor" that is introduced, along with chemical preservatives).How do we know if eating pork meat from animals contained in enclosed shelters with only limited circulation, and subjected to intense methane fumes for their entire lifetime, is actually completely safe?Can you prove it?Don't you think that when the governments of China or Russia ban US meat products in the light of these recent events, it is under the advice of their own scientists who know about these operations, keep up with events, have even better resources available to them in their labs than we with our humble little laptops and notebooks and the Internet?You are attempting to discredit my questioning and my passion about this subject, because it actually does effectively raise the alarm. As intended. And I am not alone in this: there is a whole army of people like me out there, on other websites, in other countries, working in every language written on earth, to insist that our food is safe, our farming practices sound, and corporate bodies start living up to their advertising messages -- to their fundamental duties as businessmen and human beings.Selling food that is not in fact completely sound; or has been produced in remote corners of the world, under conditions where inspections are limited, laws nonexistent or unenforceable, workers divided from the ultimate consumer by a language barrier as well as geography and social barriers; or is produced under increasing economic pressure -- compounded by a sudden flare-up of mortality and infection in an area where locals have already raised the alarm about feeling sickened from a food-production facility -- can be resonably expected to invite intense scrutiny.That is why I wrote that people who are not prepared to take on the intense and specific requirements imposed by animal husbandry as a discipline, and by commercial food production on a large scale, should simply get out of the business and pick a different product to work on.I am the mother of three young people, and a Californian since 1965. I am concerned about the quality of the food and consumables I spend my hard-earned money on. I am entitled to feel passionate about my health, my husband's health, my children's health, their friends' health. I am entitled to seek and demand answers from the people who make the food I pay for, just as I am entitled to seek & demand answers from anyone I give money to for a car, for health care, for news reports.And I am entitled to complain if answers are not forthcoming.Not to mention that I am protected by free speech and consumer protection guarantees, at which America, thank God and her people, still excels.When Firestone made defective tires and people died, remedies were found via courts. But it started with complaints and passionate letters. Do you consider those hysteria? When cars have defects that threaten lives, and people protest and call for investigations, is that "hysteria?" When Vioxx was doing more harm than good, was that "hysteria" when people complained and wrote denunciations of the pharmaceutical companies?Or is it only "hysteria" when it is a woman's voice and a woman signing the letter, Mr. Lawrence?My mother died of a very rare form of myelosarcoma that is specifically associated with dioxin poisoning. And it turned out that one of my residences in the last years of her life was built in a formerly industrialized zone, rezoned for residential development, where it was later revealed there was a lot of dioxin in the soil.Was I serving my mother tea brewed from dioxin-infused tap water?Rest assured I never wrote, complained, sued or -- heaven forfend! -- got "hysterical" over something as "banal" as my mother dying of cancer at the ripe age of 66, leaving her offspring in great financial distress, or bereaved and impeded in certain ways! What's the point of getting "hysterical" over such ridiculous commonplace events as that?And why do people get "hysterical" when they lose their money or property, Mr. Lawrence, or even some business, some clients? After all, it is not as if they are losing their health! And you clearly believe that health losses are also nothing to get "hysterical" over.When I found out about the dioxin under my house and in the neighborhood, I moved -- and switched to bottled water. Now, having found out that Smithfield Foods sells pork that has been stewed in methane while still alive and standing around in a CAFO, I will probably switch away from buying US-owned meat.I only buy for one family, Mr. Lawrence: what's the worry? What's the most I have spent on Smithfield Foods meats in the past five years? Three thousand US dollars? Five thousand?But let me tell you, before I let you off the hook here in your efforts to exonerate Smithfield Foods and Granjas Carroll (and by implication corporate US-style farming ideology, even though none-of-the-above have even been investigated in this matter by legal authorities, so why all the effort to pre-empt any investigation if the business is 100% safe & sound?): animals that are to be raised for human consumption have never been kept in confinement over their entire lifetime before, without there being adverse health consequences for them themselves, and for those of us further up the food chain.Animals, just like humans, require both some fresh air and some exercise to thrive. In addition to adequate shelter, clean drinking water, and decent food that does not contain ground excrement or the bone meal of animals that might themselves have been sick.Unfortunately, industrial feed in the US is notorious for including the ground up remains of slaughterhouses' leftovers. This fact has been widely documented; it is neither a secret, nor a mystery, not a "hysterical" allegation from a "hysterical" over-wrought woman. It is a simple fact that has been filmed and broadcast repeatedly.And it is simply the rather shocking truth of the matter about commercial meat production practices in the US.Having had the great pleasure and educational benefit recently of spending many months in the UK and many months in France, shopping like the average parent from one of these countries, I have been struck by how much better their food tastes, and also by how much healthier and more flavorful the meats are.I have already lived and worked in Germany, Italy, Spain and even Poland, and have long known that their meats are also of higher grade than US meats.Yes, European meats are pricier than American meats. People on limited budgets eat less of them, consume smaller portions generally, and eat more varied diets than the average American. But they also have better health outcomes, and live longer (most notably in Japan, France and Italy).France has some of the most stringent rules about how food is produced, and especially how animals are managed.They have the greatest life expectancy and the least heart disease of any country except Japan.The UK, when its meat supply was at risk from inadequate ground feed used on farms, quickly investigated and took drastic measures to protect the public. They changed their approach; they accepted the cost of change; they now have a safe meat supply that is both delicious and reasonably affordable. I can buy British or Irish or NZ beef (or lamb) at the Tesco, and it takes exactly like the Argentinian or Uruguayan organic beef that is also available.In the US, on the other hand, we get frequent meat recalls involving millions of portions at a time. Why?We open a package of fresh mass-produced US-corporate meat and it smells a little... strange. Why? We prepare it, and its texture an consistency are different. Why?Is it "hysterical" to ask?Is it "hysterical" to desire the same quality of meat, and the same standard of food safety, for my fellow Americans, that I seek out -- on a very modest budget -- for my own three children and husband, for my own self, in other countries? Where such standards are commonly available, enforced, and expected as a matter of entitlement by the local populations?All I want, Mr. Lawrence is honest answers, and lab test results, and CAFOs open to public scrutiny.Why is that too much to ask, and almost a "slander" to ask for?     





     

    Permalink

  10. David M. Lawrence's avatar

    David M. Lawrence Posted 2:14 pm
    03 May 2009

    Hmmm.  I referred to Tom Philpott's reporting as hysterical elsewhere, and he sounds like a guy, so I don't think there is any gender-bias in my well established English usage of the term.Are you reading what I have written?  Frankly, your responses are very hysterical, given the lengh, aggressiveness, and irrelevance of what you accuse me of saying to what I have actually said.  Your skills at projection -- in the psychological sense of the term -- do not boost your personal credibility on the issue.  If you accuse me of saying things I haven't said, how can anyone trust anything else you accuse someone of doing?My two main points deal with credibility and in basing public health policy on accurate data.  In the first case, if you make allegations that don't stick, you lose credibility. If you repeatedly do so, you look like a complete crackpot and no one other than those equally deluded as you pays attention.In your case, you keep treating me as a defender of industrial agriculture.  I am not.  I keep writing that I am not.  I argue, however, that it should be criticized for what it has done -- not what it has not.  My problem with the reporting that tries to pin the blame for this H1N1 flu outbreak on the Granjas Carroll operations -- when the data currently available suggests they are not -- does not advance the cause of cleaning up industrial agriculture.  Instead, it hurts the cause, because those made, and continue making, those allegations have proven themselves to be anything but reliable sources.By continuing to treat me as some kind of pariah for not following your party line, you give your cause as much credibility as George Bush gave U.S. foreign policy with his repeated claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.The other point is that, in a disease outbreak such as this, too much time wasted on false leads may distract authorities from avenues of investigation that enable them to quickly track down the source of and contain a deadly outbreak.  This outbreak seems to be petering out -- and I hope the current trend holds -- but in the future misdirected effort can lead to many more deaths than necessary in the future.Calm, cold, dispassionate investigation is the best way to ensure that unnecessary deaths do not occur.  If this attitude seems deserving of such an unbalanced response as yours, so be it.  But I suspect most rational people get the point.

    Permalink

  11. maria-ashot Posted 3:12 pm
    03 May 2009

    Please read this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jun/22/foodanddrink.foodThe number of people alarmed by how America produces, markets & consumes meat is high, reflecting diverse backgrounds and experience. The concerns raised are legitimate and will not simply go away as a matter of convenience for American business interests.Note that, unlike many critics of the American Way of Food, I do not advocate either veganism or vegetarianism, as many other activists do.I am only suggesting that reverting to sounder practices rooted in age-old understanding of how humans best interact with animals intended to be eaten by other humans, and allowing herds to shrink, prices to go up, diets to change, and farms to use cleaner methods -- and not pool feces in lagoon, not add secondary lines of revenue-building via methane-harvesting and bioreactor entrepreneurship -- will actually allow the industry to survive.Ostrich acts will not. Take your pick. And please, Mr. Lawrence, stop pretending we can be dispassionate about stuff that goes into makes up our body within moments of crossing our lips. This planet is not a graveyard yet, full of corpses; we are not zombies, no matter how aggressively shiny ads are pitched at us, or however many additives are meant to slow down our mental and metabolic processes.You really think scholarship, careers, money, survival, health are subjects that "cold, dispassionate" catatonia helps advance?  

    Permalink

  12. maria-ashot Posted 3:45 pm
    03 May 2009

    Also please read this:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27521859/"Cold and dispassionate" enough for you?The corporate pig farmers have no idea their business models come with potential public health threats? Global ones?And, of course, Mexico's environmental protection standards are at least as high as our EPA's, right?That's why Smithfield Foods put its CAFOs in Mexico, isn't it: because the EP standards exceed those operating on US soil, right?How dare anyone go out there and suggest to a working parent like me that meats produced under such conditions ought to be purchased for our meals? And then suggest that disagreeing makes us unhinged on some level?It's my money: I will spend it where I see fit. I buy bottled water; I support sustainable & intelligent farming; I buy meat raised by professionals who know how to treat an animal they hope to offer for sale to me and my peers.End of story, Mr. Lawrence. Smithfield Foods has a PR problem, and they are taking precisely the wrong approach to deal with it. Instead, they should be learning from the past sound decisions of companies such as Johnson & Johnson during the Tylenol scare.J&J faced up to the public's concerns, even though very few people were actually harmed, and after a product recall instituted new policies and practices. They saved the brand and the reputation of the US health care industry (for a time), and were abe to continue to export successfully.My message to American decisionmakers, bottom line, is very simple: study the past, and learn from it.Don't just tell me, as DL does above: "Nasty smells are harmless as proven when dumping feces into the Thames worsened cholera instead of reducing it." That is not even a logical statement.Noxious smells -- and CAFOs are beyond noxious, as anyone knows who ever drove down I-5 past "elite" Harris Ranch feedlots near Coalinga, since relocated -- are indicators of the presence of substances associated with disease, toxicity and decomposition. Not always harmful, but, in great concentrations, not harmless by any means.It took human beings far too long to discover the link between hygiene and health. Ought we to reconsider that vital discovery?Think clearly. Think carefully. Should your food come from clean facilities and healthy animals?Or may it come just as "safely" from filthy facilities and diseased animals -- or animals suffering extreme stress under unnatural, biologically counterintuitive and historically untested conditions of prolonged confinement in huge concentrations comparable to overcrowded prison camps for animals, with very little mobility and no fresh air?How hard is it, really?

    Permalink

  13. David M. Lawrence's avatar

    David M. Lawrence Posted 4:06 pm
    03 May 2009

    Maria, what does this have to do with my comments about the reportage blaming the H1N1 epidemic on the Granjas Carroll operations in Veracruz?  If the coverage turns out to be wrong, as it now appears, does that do journalism's credibility or the environmental movement's credibility any good?This discussion would have been worthwhile if it had been focused on what I have written rather than a lengthy diatribe about what I have not.Feel free to have the last word.

    Permalink

  14. amazingdrx Posted 9:01 pm
    04 May 2009

    Great job Maria!  I would have helped out but I stopped posting here in frustration a while back.  Waiting through 4 interminably slow  page refreshes, then losing the comment 50% of the time, compared to twitter,it  is too stressful to battle the same old talking point corporate apologist quietism couched in supposed scientific objectivity.Lawrence will gladly wait until the verdict is in, but then will he accept the connection between viral evolution and human, pig, and other animal waste consumed by pigs?  This was the same old story with the avian flu from china, now long forgotten.  The scientific connection was made but is now of little interest to media.The answer is, no.  Lawrence won't admit he was wrong.  He won't have to.  By the time the science is done, blocked all the way by smithfield, it's mexican partners, the mexican government, lobbyists, and corporate lawyers, he won't be interested anymore.  kind of convenient.  Thanks for shaming me into the difficult task of commenting on the neo-grist (hehey, a tribute to DR's obsession with neoliberalism).blog: http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog twitter: http://twitter.com/amazingdrx  

    Permalink

  15. atreyger Posted 7:53 am
    05 May 2009

    I honestly think that you should treat someone who writes three posts that are greater in length and completely off topic as compared to the original article as a spammer and avoid talking to them. Clearly, she has faith, and clearly her faith will be reinforced by her zeal, damn the science. Furthermore, it seems that a large proportion of Grist's audience and contributors (present company excluded) is unwilling to consider science as a means of answering questions (i.e. create hypothesis, disclose assumptions, test hypothesis, draw a conclusion, publish results, and in combination with other literature, build up a theory). Clearly, it is enough for some to write and say as much as they can based on what they think is true, to build up a very sound theory in their own mind. Thank you F(Grist)ox News.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement