Very few people are actually passionate about industrial food. Sure, people will buy rock-hard and flavorless tomatoes from the supermarket without thinking much about it, but they won't get mad because, say, there's a farmers' market down the road where someone's selling flavorful heirloom tomatoes grown without chemicals.
Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute -- funded lavishly by right-wing foundations and agribiz giants -- is a different breed altogether. Indeed, it's as though Monsanto conjured him up in a test-tube: the fellow seems to have a congenital hatred of organic food -- and a burning desire to make you hate it, too. His preferred method for achieving his goal is fear.
Take the BS he's been spreading about the recent E. coli outbreak affecting pre-washed, bagged spinach, on Gristmill and elsewhere.
In a Gristmill comment earlier today, Avery had this to say:
[H]ow do you explain the recent findings of the group at the U of Minnesota that certified organic products were more than 3 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli than conventional? (They found E. coli in 7% of certified organic produce vs. 2% of conventional, J of Food Protection 69(8):1928-1936, 2006) Hmmmm. Actual science showing greater E. coli risk from organic farming? Naw, must be anti-organic spin, right?
Wow. Should I be scared of the spinach I grow in my own field, which is fertilized with well-composted manure? Well, no. Here is the abstract of the article cited by Avery. The study tested produce from three farm types: certified organic; "semi-organic," or farms that use organic practices but aren't certified; and conventional.
The article states flatly that "none of the produce samples collected during the 2 years of this study were contaminated with Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7." The latter E. coli type, quite dangerous and virulent, is the one that infected California spinach last week.
As for other strains of E. coli, the report says that "the prevalence of E. coli contamination by produce type was not significantly different between the three farm types during these 2 years," except one year in which certified-organic produce had less E. coli than semi-organic produce.
Coliform counts were higher in organic than conventional spinach, but the researchers raise no alarms. Its abstract concludes:
These results indicate that the preharvest microbiological quality of produce from the three types of farms was very similar during these two seasons and that produce type appears to be more likely than farm type to influence E. coli contamination.
Rather than spread easily debunked misinformation, Avery might more usefully occupy himself addressing two serious charges against industrial farming raised by the E. coli scare:
- As Nina Planck showed over on the New York Times op-ed page, E. coli O157:H7 thrives in the guts of corn-fed cows, not grass-fed cows, raising the serious suspicion that the outbreak stems from intensive dairy farming; and
- the argument made by me and others that the outbreak is a symptom of concentrating so much production of one crop in one area, organic or not.
As for the fear that Avery's remarks were supposed to inspire, it all fell flat for me except one bit: "Author of: The Truth About Organic Foods, to be released in late October 2006."
Oh, dear. Lots of debunking busywork looms.
While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Comments
View as Flat
aavery Posted 6:41 am
28 Sep 2006
Fact: Earthbound Farms ORGANIC Baby Spinach has now been directly implicated in this most recent spinach outbreak -- by an Ohio family who's youngest child now has permanent kidney damage from consuming that organic food.
Diez-Gonzalez's research from 2004 and his most recent paper from 2006 indicate that organic produce is more likely to be contaminated with E. coli. Try reading more than D-G's biased abstract (there's actual data and science in that paper, Tom.)
D-G found a roughly 3X higher E. coli contamination rate in organic produce in 2004 and again a 3X higher E. coli contamination rate for organic in 2006. Here's a key sentence from the 2006 paper: "In the 2 years of sampling, 68 semiorganic samples (8%) and 34 organic fruit and vegetable samples (7%) had detectable E. coli contamination. For conventional produce, as many as 13 samples (2%) tested positive for E. coli"
The facts are the facts, man.
You crow that they didn't find Salmonella or O157:H7 in the 2006 research, but this means nothing, as these are notoriously hard to find. In 19 past outbreaks of O157:H7 from lettuce, investigators failed to find it in suspected product. (Nor do you mention that in 2004 D-G DID find salmonella on organic lettuce and green pepper, but not on any conventional produce!)
That's why generic E. coli is used as an "indicator organism" by health authorities. Because his own data are clearly negative in this regard, D-G (who is a hard-core organic devotee) is now trying to claim that use of generic E. coli as an indicator of fecal contamination is being "questioned by a number of researchers." Really?
Funny how the organic proponents always re-think things when the facts don't fit their propaganda.
You can't spin the fact that Earthbound's Organic Baby Spinach has been directly implicated in this outbreak. Which "industrial farming" technique are you going to try and blame this on this time? Which scapegoat are you going to try and pawn this off on?
You can keep running from reality, but it won't change it.
Alex Avery,
Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues
PS: You wrote that I seem to "have a congenital hatred of organic food -- and a burning desire to make you hate it, too. His preferred method for achieving his goal is fear."
I feel the same way in reverse: The organic fanatics seem to have a congenital hatred of non-organic food -- and a burning desire to make you hate it, too. Their preferred method for achieving this goal is fear.
The only difference: I base my stance on science and reality -- you base yours on faith and emotion.
Live and let live. Eat however you wish. But don't deny reality in your anti-non-organic farming smear campaign.
Alex
Permalink
aavery Posted 6:55 am
28 Sep 2006
O157:H7 was detected in 25% of organic dairy herds vs. 17% for conventional.
More organic propaganda down the drain.
Kuhnert P, Dubosson CR, Roesch M, Homfeld E, Doherr MG, Blum JW.
Prevalence and risk-factor analysis of Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli in faecal samples of organically and conventionally farmed dairy cattle. Vet Microbiol. 2005 Aug 10;109(1-2):37-45.
Cattle are a natural reservoir for Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC), however, no data are available on the prevalence and their
possible association with organic or conventional farming practices.
We have therefore studied the prevalence of STEC and specifically O157:H7 in Swiss dairy cattle by collecting faeces from approximately 500 cows from 60 farms with organic production (OP) and 60 farms with integrated (conventional) production (IP). IP farms were matched to OP farms and were comparable in terms of community, agricultural zone, and number of cows per farm. E. coli were grown overnight in an enrichment medium, followed by DNA isolation and PCR analysis using specific TaqMan assays. STEC were detected in all farms and O157:H7 were present in 25% of OP farms and 17% of IP farms. STEC were detected in 58% and O157:H7 were evidenced in 4.6% of individual faeces. Multivariate statistical analyses of over 250 parameters
revealed several risk-factors for the presence of STEC and O157:H7.
Risk-factors were mainly related to the potential of cross-contamination of feeds and cross-infection of cows, and age of the animals. In general, no significant differences between the two farm types concerning prevalence or risk for carrying STEC or O157:H7 were observed. Because the incidence of human disease caused by STEC in Switzerland is low, the risk that people to get infected appears to be small despite a relatively high prevalence in cattle. Nevertheless, control and prevention practices are indicated to avoid contamination of animal products.
Alex
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:43 am
28 Sep 2006
People in glass houses....
Kaela
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:56 am
28 Sep 2006
Perhaps Alex should visit grieving mothers of miscarried and stillborn children in places like rural Iowa and Kansas.
Maybe he would prefer a silent spring to all those noisy birds chirping and crickets calling.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:58 am
28 Sep 2006
Here is Reuters on common E. coli vs. E.coli O157:H7:
Escherichia coli is a common and usually harmless bacteria found in the guts of animals. A new, toxic strain called E.coli O157:H7 was identified in 1982. It now causes an 73,000 cases of infection and 61 deaths in the United States each year.
Okay, so the real question here is O157:H7, not E. coli per se. You write that is O157:H7 "notoriously hard to find." What's your source on that? According to the Reuters article linked above, authorities found it on a second bag of conventional spinach a few days ago. Oops, just today a third bag of tainted conventional spinach has been id'ed. All three have been branded Dole.
Alex, be honest, now: does Dole give Hudson money? Just asking -- I know gigantic Natural Selection Foods buys, processes, packs, and distributes spinach for Dole and nearly three dozen other brands. Such is the efficiency of the food system you've devoted your life to protecting.
Now, where were we? In addition to all three tainted bags being branded Dole, they're all conventional. I await news coverage of the case of tainted organic spinach you've been trumpeting.
However, I won't be surprised if it happens. Vast fields of organically grown spinach are just as susceptible to contamination by tainted streams as conventional ones. And that's what looks likely to have caused the outbreak.
Finally, to the study you cite about O157:H7 in organic vs. conventional cattle. Its abstract doesn't mention whether the organic cattle are grass-fed. If they are, the study is pertinent to the debate; if not, then it's irrelevant. Dean Foods, the largest U.S. processor of conventional and "organic" milk, gets a significant portion of its "organic" milk from confined cows eating organic corn.
But that practice undermines the organic label; it reproduces many of the ills of industrial production while drawing a price premium from misinformed consumers. By the way, have you guys hit up Dean for cash? Might be worth the trouble.
Nina Planck points us to a lit review in the Journal of Dairy Science showing that grass-fed cattle have much lower incidence of O157:H7 than grain-fed cattle. Of course, I mentioned that in my above post as well.
By the way, how's Michael Fumento doing? Still, make that Monsanto cash fall out of the sky?
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:42 am
28 Sep 2006
um...
... a sample? you know, cause I heard them samples have them sample variances inherent to umm... lack of our ability to test the whole population or something like that?
Oh, but I guess you wouldn't know anything about that.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:50 am
28 Sep 2006
And thems scientists wasn't able to find no statistical differences in all thems mumbojumbos, but for the prevalence due to cross-contaminaishun and cross-infecshun and age of cows. They's was biased too out there in Switzerland.
Permalink
Fryday Posted 1:11 am
29 Sep 2006
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1471708.ec...
E.Coli has also been found in some drinking water supplies in four of the major cities, due to human and animal extrements contamination.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1410703.ec...
Permalink
Joe Posted 11:14 pm
02 Oct 2006
How conforting it is that you actually read some scientific literature. The next step is understanding them. Perhaps you should ask Daddy to explain statistics to you. You seem to have gathered so many other "talents" from him.
Permalink
aavery Posted 3:22 am
01 Mar 2007
How about these apples? AP story below from Feb 28, 2007 indicates the spinach WAS grown organically (2 years into 3-year transition).
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ... (you get the picture).
Officials trace tainted spinach to San Benito County farm
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Article Last Updated: 02/28/2007 01:04:43 PM PST
SACRAMENTO - Fresh spinach that sparked a nationwide E. coli outbreak last fall was grown on a roughly 50-acre plot in San Benito County, health officials told state lawmakers.
Officials said at a legislative hearing Tuesday that investigators identified the grower who was farming that plot, which was in the second year of a three-year transition to organic production.
However, they declined to release further details until they complete a full report on the outbreak. Dr. Kevin Reilly of the California Department of Health Services did not give an exact date for releasing the report with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but said "hopefully within the next few weeks."
Investigators previously have said they linked a strain of E. coli that killed three people and sickened more than 200 others in September to wild pigs that may have spread the bacteria in the field.
In an effort to restore consumer confidence in the wake of the outbreak, California lettuce and spinach processors crafted a voluntary inspection program, overseen by the state, that will allow participants to put a food safety seal of approval on their products. Officials and industry leaders are working to outline the inspection guidelines.
So far, 51 handlers that wash, package and ship about 90 percent of the leafy greens processed in the state have signed up for the program, state Department of Food and Agriculture officials said Tuesday.
Alex
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:49 am
01 Mar 2007
So the spinach came from a to-be-organic plot. That's hardly enough information to conclude anything. Where did the E.Coli come from? From manure applied by the farmer? Or from wild pigs? Or washed over from nearby cattle operations? Brought in on the tires of a truck? There simply isn't enough information available at this point to know whether or not the contamination had anything to do with organic practices, or not.
Permalink
aavery Posted 4:55 am
01 Mar 2007
What about the fact that the previous speculated route of contamination was that a wild pig transfered the E. coli from a nearby cattle ranch. Guess what kind of ranch. Go on, guess.
Grass-fed, free-range cattle ranch -- obliterating the claim that E. coli O157:H7 only comes from "factory farms."
GreenEngineer: why can't you finally admit that organic __ also stinks and is NO SAFER than any other food, and might be less safe by relying on manure as a primary fertilizer?
Objectivity? Please!
Alex "Still looking at the science" Avery, Hudson Institute
Alex
Permalink