I want to respond to two very well articulated, and provocative, comments on recent posts. They have in common the subject of pathogens in our food, but come at the subject in completely different ways. They kind of got me going.
First, Laurie Girand, the head of Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP), makes one of the more interesting moral arguments I have seen in a long time in her comment on my posting, “A Well Meaning Organization That Can’t Leave Us Alone About Pasteurization.”
Here is her conclusion:” The issue is not about germs vs. overprocessing, as you stated. However, it IS about what you are willing to give up to protect children, the elderly, the immune impaired, pregnant women, and above all, the uninformed, about the risks they take when they drink and eat potentially microbially contaminated foods.”
I’m sorry, Laurie, I have to assume, or rather hope, you just got carried away, when you implied I should feel guilty if I’m not willing to give up my right to consume certain foods to protect all the unfortunates of our society, including “the uninformed.” (Oh, come on David, do you mean to tell me you wouldn’t give be willing to give up a stupid glass of unpasteurized juice to save a poor unfortunate uninformed person?)
I’m kind of struggling to figure out how to say this, because I want to get the words right, but I guess for a guy who spends a lot of time trying to remain reasonably informed, I never thought about the uninformed as a special interest group who require me to give up basic freedoms, like the freedom to buy and consume certain foods. Sure, I have to give up the right to go out and sell Ponzi schemes to the uninformed, but unpasteurized juice, or non-irradiated meat? And I don’t want to appear to be doting on “the uninformed”—there are ways to protect the pregnant, elderly, children, etc., etc. that don’t include impinging on a very important freedom. Every bottle of wine and other liquor carries this little warning: “According to the surgeon general, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects.” That pretty much covers it, and most women heed its warning. A few don’t, but do we prohibit all sales of wine to protect the unborn who are adversely affected by the few abusers? We actually did do that for a time, and the government finally gave up, in 1932.
As Laurie suggested, I spent some time reading through some of STOP’s literature, mainly letters to government officials on the subject of juice pasteurization and irradiated meat.
Here are some quotes from STOP letters to government agencies:
To the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1999 about irradiation of meat:
“Just as insufficient doses of the right medication will be useless in curing or preventing an illness, so will insufficient doses of irradiation in meat and poultry be ineffective in significantly reducing pathogens and protecting the public.”
To the FDA in 2000 on pasteurizing juices:
“…heat pasteurization has a century-long, proven track record of effectiveness in protecting the public health. The time has come to require all juice to be pasteurized until alternative technologies are proven to be as effective.”
I guess I come away from these letters still feeling that STOP is a bunch of zealots—well intentioned zealots, but as the expression has it, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you really want to protect the uninformed, why not go after Kentucky Fried Chicken and Coca Cola and Dunkin Donuts? They really do prey on the uninformed (and children, pregnant women, immune impaired, and the elderly), making pretty much any medical condition they have that much worse. I wrote about one such uninformed person in a recent BusinessWeek.com article, the price he paid for being uninformed, and his efforts to make amends.
I cringe when I watch my young niece (and anyone else, for that matter) guzzling down soft drinks. I resent the people who create glittery and enticing advertisements to make people think they’ll be more popular if they consume these drinks. But I always bite my tongue when my niece is consuming her drinks. I figure it’s up to her parents to limit those drinks. It’s certainly not up to the government. Or is it?
I also know that prohibiting any food is a huge step. The problem is that once you give up the right to a food product, getting the right back requires near all-out warfare. Just look at the battles consumers and farmers are fighting just for the right to consume milk. It took a constitutional amendment to get back the right to consume wine. I’d hate to have to fight such a battle to be able to consume non-irradiated meat, especially when it comes from a farmer I know and trust.
I guess I have a fatalistic attitude about food. When I go out for sushi, I usually joke about how I’m playing Russian roulette—I pretty much assume that one of these days I’m going to get a bad batch of fish, which is going to make me pretty sick. Even before I get badly ill, I’m probably slowly poisoning myself with mercury and other bad stuff. My solution has been to cut back on my sushi consumption, but I still reserve the right to eat it, and for others to eat as much of it as they want. And when I do eat it, I go to a restaurant I know and trust. I’m trying to do the same thing with other foods–buy from farmers and producers I know and trust.
You compare setting limits on what we eat to setting limits on how we drive (on the right side of the road, with seat belts), but the analogy doesn’t hold. There’s no benefit to driving on the wrong side of the road or without seat belts, aside from the satisfaction of having the freedom to do so. But there are likely nutritional benefits from consuming raw juice, raw fish, raw milk, and other unprocessed foods. To dismiss that possibility with the throwaway line that “substantial benefits to drinking unpasteurized juice…was not supported in any scientific data” is the same line used by those who deny any connection between vaccination and autism, and who condemn raw milk. There are certainly more benefits in such foods than drinking Coke and Pepsi, and probably less danger. You can say there are no pathogens in Coke and Pepsi, but obesity, diabetes, and other chronic ailments are their own sorts of plagues.
I’ll conclude by saying thanks but no thanks. Thanks for your offers of protection, but no thanks, I prefer to look out for myself. I do appreciate you stating your views so eloquently, though, because I don’t think this subject tends to gets thrashed out so candidly.
The second item I want to address (and this will be much briefer, I promise) is Diane Reifschneider’s comments about Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and the outbreak of E.coli 0157:H7 in California last September (following my posting, “Getting at the Truth About the Danger of E.coli in Raw Milk”). I should note that even though I previously referred to owner Mark McAfee as an ideologue, I have nothing but respect for his commitment to producing a healthy natural product and for his courage in standing up to the regulatory authorities who shut his dairy down last September.
Reifschneider repeats a lot that McAfee has previously stated about the fact that the E.coli that sickened three of the four California children was never found in Organic Pastures cows, or elsewhere at the dairy. My problem with what Reifschneider says is to conclude that there is no way Organic Pastures milk could have been the cause of the children’s illness, even though each of the children consumed its milk. That attitude denies the role of epidemiological evidence as a means to show possible causes, which is what initially prompted me to suggest ideology might be at work.
But the more important message of Reifschneider’s comment is to reinforce a message that has come out any number of times on this blog: that there is a huge amount we don’t know about E.coli 0157:H7. We’ve been treated to all manner of theories about the E.coli—the “evanescent E.coli” Reifschneider alludes to, the high-temperature driven E.coli from Mary McGonigle-Martin, the antibiotic-driven E.coli, the feed-lot-produced E.coli, and the E.coli that infects a few but leaves most consumers unaffected.
The key point here is that the dynamics of infection from E.coli 0157:H7 aren’t fully understood. Which is all the more reason not to invoke guilt to justify radical legislative and regulatory “solutions” like requiring pasteurization and irradiation of more of our foods.
Irradiation Policy
S.T.O.P. supports, as a whole, validated practices, processes and technologies that are recognized to make food safer.
S.T.O.P. does not endorse any specific technologies or processes, including irradiation.
S.T.O.P. does not oppose food irradiation. S.T.O.P. recognizes irradiation as a pathogen reduction technology that could impact the incidence of foodborne illnesses and deaths.
S.T.O.P. advocates a comprehensive, field-to-fork food safety strategy that incorporates contamination prevention steps and protective actions at each point along the continuum. S.T.O.P. vehemently opposes the use of irradiation as a substitute or replacement for any of these contamination prevention measures.
Because re-contamination can occur after food is irradiated, S.T.O.P. advocates that food be irradiated in its final packaging. Anything less could lead to a false sense of security for consumers wishing to minimize their exposure to pathogens in food, stemming from the perception that he/she is purchasing pathogen-free food when it is labeled as having been irradiated.
S.T.O.P. recognizes a lack of data showing the risks and effects of consuming irradiated food. These risks may or may not outweigh the risks of pathogenic contamination in non-irradiated food. We support the right of the consumer to assess these risks and make an informed choice through means such as, but not limited to, mandatory labeling of irradiated products.
The topics were discussing right now are touching upon all the fundamental issues of our great nation–the balance of power.
The three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial
States rights vs federal rights
Personal rights vs the good of all
The right to choose vs the right to protect
We are all quite heated right now because a strong personal belief in each of us is being challenged. The issue is e-coli contamination in our food supply. The solution to this problem triggers our belief systems. Whats great about being American is that we have the right to have an opinion, agree to disagree and then find a common middle ground. This middle ground is lifes many shades of gray. Its the American way and the foundation of democracy.
I see life as a big swinging pendulum of ideas. In a way is it is a perfect ecosystem of balance. Sometimes it swings to the far right and then to the far left. This swinging right and left forces a balance in the middle. In this ecosystem of life, we are in a constant state of change. As new information is derived, ideas change and the pendulum swings. We always find ourselves back in the middle where there are many shades of gray.
Food borne pathogens in our food supply forces us to ask the question, Are food borne pathogens preventable? If you believe they are then how are they preventable? Sanitation seems to be one answer, but what is sanitation? It is a concept that lies on a continuum. How far should be go with these regulations? What should be done in the name of public safety? Should we lose rights in order to be safe?
Or the other end of the continuum is the belief that food borne pathogens are a part of nature. It is futile to try and control them. The FDA and the CDC a waste of our tax money. There is no way they can monitor the entire food supply. Besides, theyre in bed with big business. Theyre not really here to protect us.
Whether you believe in the Germ theory (S.T.O.P) or the immune theory (most people on this blog), everyone is in agreement that the meat industry, with their inhumane practices and greed for money, has created the e-coli 0157:H7 pathogen nightmare. After all the reading Ive done on this subject, it think were only at the beginning this bad dream.
The solution to this problem is where we find ourselves at odds. Respect is of the utmost importance. I can respect the subculture of health as one way to fight against this issue. I understand this subculture because Im a member of it. Dont buy the bad food, try to eat only local food and support the small farmer. The mass production of our food supply is at the root of the problem. Lets go back to the way things used to be and create strong communities. This is a beautiful dream to have, but some may ask if it is realistic. Is there a way to turn things around?
I can also respect women whose children have died or have severely suffered from e-coli 0157:H7 to say they are PISSED and theyre going to do something about it. Theyve become a special interest group (the beauty of being an American) and theyre using their power to make a change in the system. In spirit, Im also a member of this subculture. They have taken on the bad guy.the meat and poultry industry. One may not agree with their methods, but you must respect that their goal is the same as most people on this blog. Something needs to be done to address this issue. Some might say it is not realistic to think that real changes can be made in big business and the agenda of this organization is creating more problems.
How can these two groups of people align with each other in that place in the middle that has many shades of gray? We all have the same dream; to make this world a safe place for ourselves and our children.
examining every link offered I would like to commend you all.
David- I applaud you and your blog,the issues you bring up are outstanding. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees on your viewpoint these are very important issues that need to be discussed.
Mary- Wow what can I say about you. You are an amazing individual. I felt your pain when I read about Chris. Hope he is doing alot better.
My family and I operate a small family farm in Illinois. We sell raw goats milk and other farm products. My natural belief is pro raw milk but.. your viewpoints and the way you present them are outstanding. The last comment you posted about the many shades of grey how dead on is that. Doesn’t matter if its food safety, politics,religon,money,enviroment if we all approached thing in your manner the world we be such a better place.
Again I applaud you both !