Bring on the Sick Kids: Why the Food-Safety Zealots Prefer Fear Mongering to Real Debate or Research
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 12:15PM I’m fairly recent to the food safety debate, relatively speaking. I think I really began looking at it seriously when six children in California became ill during September 2006, and raw milk produced by Organic Pastures Dairy Co. was blamed as the culprit. I have Mary McGonigle-Martin, the mother of one of those children, especially, to thank for persistently (some might say obsessively) bringing the food safety issue to the fore on this blog.
One doesn’t have to be all that well versed in food safety to appreciate a few things: that there is a lot that we don’t know about food safety (like why some people get sick and others don’t, or why the pathogen culprits are so rarely found); that food safety is a complex issue (as I said in the previous post) and that the food safety zealots tend to over simplify the problem). Lykke in a comment on my previous post suggests additional issues, like insufficient consumer education, slow government responses, and a screwed up legal system.
It’s the problem of over-simplification that I find most bothersome. So I guess it is only fitting that we find a great case of over-simplification on stark display via a recent posting by food-poisoning lawyer Bill Marler that, ironically, relates directly to the cases of the six California children I alluded to at the start of this post.
The day after my previous posting about food-borne illness becoming a more prominent issue, President Obama addressed it. (No doubt, he was moved to speak out after reading this blog.)
So how did Marler report it? The way he generally reports such developments: “Mr. President, the reason food safety is so important can best be explained by clicking on the below pictures and reading these children’s stories.” The “below pictures” are the two California children who became most seriously ill in September 2006—Chris Martin and Lauren Herzog—and eventually sued Organic Pastures Dairy Co. for allegedly causing their illnesses.
I’ll assume these two case studies just came up by chance, likely because the deposition-gathering process has just ended in the children’s cases against Organic Pastures Dairy Co. It’s worth noting that the descriptions of the cases are very complete, and well written (though you'll note that only one of the children had proven E.coli 0157:H7). They are worth reading for what they tell us about both the heartache and the long-term risks to health of serious food-borne illness.
Unfortunately, this ongoing approach to the subject—“You want to know about how serious a problem food-borne illness is, well, take a look at this tragic case, and that tragic case...and if you don’t like those, I have more where they came from”—really does the victims an injustice. I understand that approach works in the courtroom, when you're trying to convince a jury about the tragedy and injustice of the case at hand, and win big bucks in damages, or convince an insurance company to come up with a juicy settlement.
But in the courtroom of policy debate, the Marlers of the world need to move beyond this simplistic approach. Consider approaches like that outlined by Steve Bemis in a comment on my previous posting, about how to provide information about the risks, while not killing off smaller sustainable farms in the process. Or maybe think about saying something to this effect: “Let’s try to use these cases to fill in our gaps in knowledge about food-borne illness.” The danger in that approach, of course, is that the fear mongers may discover some lessons that don’t fit their preconceived notions. More profitable to just go on feeding people’s fears.
Reader Comments (34)
This raw milk must be pretty potent stuff. I hear tell that you can catch E.Coli from someone *else's* child who drinks it:
"Erin Barringer of West Hartford, whose daughter contracted E. coli from a child who drank raw milk, according to health officials, is helping to campaign for the stricter legislation. “It can be frustrating at times because I think everybody’s lost sight of who the victims are,” said Ms. Barringer, whose daughter, Emma, was 2 years and 10 months old when she got sick, even though she herself never drank raw milk."
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/connecticut/15milkct.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
It's no wonder Mark's got liability insurance on nature's perfect food.
r,
Paul Hubbard
Virginia Peninsula
It was hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you really don’t understand that E.coli 0157:H7 can spread from an infected person to another person through contact. This can happen with children (they put fingers in their mouths) and the elderly in convalescent homes (lack of hand washing by caregivers). Two of the four children who died from E.coli 0157:H7 in the 1993 Jack-in-the-box outbreak did not eat hamburgers. They played with children who did.
These children’s stories are about the damage that can be caused from ingesting E.coli 0157:H7. In this case, the food vehicle happened to be raw milk. Where hamburger is the vehicle, then I guess you would say, “Hamburger must be pretty potent stuff.” Or if it happens to be lettuce, “Lettuce must be pretty potent stuff. Let’s not forget about spinach, “Spinach must be pretty potent stuff”.
I think you get the picture….E.coli 0157:H7 is the “pretty potent stuff”. (Sorry miguel, I know these type of statement drive you insane.)
cp
Can you direct me to some evidence that ecoli 0157:H7 can grow in raw milk without the presence of an agent that kills or inhibits lactic acid bacteria?
If you can't I will assume that no such evidence exists.What evidence do you have that convinces you that ecoli causes disease?
Everybody knows that antibiotics can cause diarreah and sometimes it can be very serious.I wonder if ,when a child comes into the hospital with diarreah,there is any test done to see if there is some antibiotic or antibacterial agent in the stool sample.The test is quick and simple.There might be a faster test now, but we used to test milk for antibiotics and it took 3 hours to get the results.The test tells you whether lactic acid bacteria will grow in the sample .If it will it is free of antibiotics.If the bacteria die then there are antibiotics in the sample.While waiting to see what the test says it wouldn't hurt to see if the child can drink some kind of probiotic drink.
Do you think it would be reasonable for a doctor to assume that the diarreah was the result of some agent that was killing the lactic acid bacteria and so test only for antibiotics,preservatives,pesticides,sanitizing chemicals etc.rather than testing for bacteria? Some bacterial testing might be helpful because the existence of certain bacteria could be a marker for the presence of a certain pesticide or antibacterial agent.An abundance of ecoli would tell us that whatever killed off a lot of the lactic acid bacteria was not effective against the ecoli ,so we could search for an agent that ecoli was known to be resistant to.
I have the impression that hospitals now are testing for a specific bacteria and that the tests take a long time to complete.Is this true?
"But in the courtroom of policy debate, the Marlers of the world need to move beyond this simplistic approach."
Curious what others think, but I find this statement to be a double standard. There are many approaches to making policy - testimonials are one example. Why shouldn't testimonials about negative experiences be included? Of course, I very much appreciate Steve Bemis' thoughts too. But, cannot understand why you would want to censor the links Marler provides on raw milk (which represent a small percentage of the total number of testimonials anyway - they are just one more piece added to the discussion). Censor is a strong word - I'm sure you don't want the courts to remove the material from the web - but my interpretation is that you perhaps think it should never have been presented.
"Can you direct me to some evidence that ecoli 0157:H7 can grow in raw milk without the presence of an agent that kills or inhibits lactic acid bacteria?"
E. coli O157:H7 may cause serious infection at a dose as low as 10 cells - this does not require any growth in the raw milk. Similarly, Campylobacter has a very low infectious dose. So just a bit 'o poo with it's original concentration of these bacteria typical of a cow's gut can be a problem. If there is temperature abuse allowing growth - even worse, but not necessary. Bacterial growth in the food is not a prerequisite because of the low infectious dose - that is why sanitation is very critical for any raw product. I can't find any reference(s) showing lactic acid bacteria reduce E. coli O157:H7, once introduced, below the infectious dose of 10 cells (E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, etc. are not natural in mother's milk, whatever species - it gets in there from the environment, usually poo or dirt exposed to poo).
"Everybody knows that antibiotics can cause diarreah and sometimes it can be very serious."
Yes, and that complicates the picture, but doesn't "vindicate" E. coli O157:H7 or other pathogens as culprits in disease. Do you defend Clostridium difficile? Why would you accept C. diffcile as a potential disease causing agent under the right circumstances, but deny E. coli O157:H7 a pathogen under other circumstances?
I don't agree about lactic acid bacteria (LAB) being a cure all for these problems. Sure, they play a role in the ecology of the gut and the environment. Would you suggest spraying all the food with LAB or otherwise manipulating products to create a theoretically desirable concentration of that bacteria, which is not even part of the normal flora on many foods? In the spirit of things, I think manipulating LAB would be another version of Frankenfoods - and could have unexpected consequences, do you think? Mother nature, untouched, shows an unpredictable diversity of LAB and other bacteria. Indeed, it is so complex, that there is a time and place for simplicity: sanitation and good food safety practices to prevent pathogens from entering food in the first place.
This is my evidence.
http://www.safetables.org/victim_wall/index.cfm
Just curious, what’s your theory on why the children got sick in Connecticut who all happened to drink raw milk and they found matching blueprints of E.coli 0157:H7 in stool samples. What agent(s) are you speculating that killed or inhibited lactic acid bacteria? Would that agent be in the milk or in the ill child’s body?
For example, a child consumes raw milk. This milk happens to be contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7. This child has been swimming in a pool that uses chlorine to keep the pool free of bacteria. This child absorbs the chlorine through the skin and therefore kills or inhibits lactic acid bacteria from growing in the digestive track. The E.coli 0157:H7 enters the body. Now if the ph of this child’s body was 7 and the lactic acid bacteria plentiful in the gut, the E.coli would not do any damage because it couldn’t grow in that environment. It is just another bacteria swimming in a pool of bacteria. But because the lactic acid bacteria are not dominant enough, the E.coli 0157:H7 is allowed to multiply and spread through the digestive track and then the child becomes ill. But the E.coli 0157:H7 is not the problem, the lack of lactic acid bacteria is.
My opinion--I still think cow shit shouldn’t be in the milk in the first place. No cow shit = no sick children. Call me old fashioned in my thinking.
cp
" E. coli O157:H7 may cause serious infection at a dose as low as 10 cells - this does not require any growth in the raw milk."
Can you find me an article that backs up this statement? I have looked some but I can't find any research that says this.
"Everybody knows that antibiotics can cause diarreah and sometimes it can be very serious."
"Yes, and that complicates the picture, but doesn't "vindicate" E. coli O157:H7 or other pathogens as culprits in disease. "
Lykke,to be fair shouldn't we look at the stool sample for the presence of antibiotic and antibacterial substances as well as bacteria?Their presence would explain why the ecoli was able to grow.Ecoli 0157:H7 is not competitive unless other bacteria are suppressed.
"What agent(s) are you speculating that killed or inhibited lactic acid bacteria? Would that agent be in the milk or in the ill child’s body?"
I am suggesting that we should look for inhibiting agents so we can understand more about how these children become ill.
Cow s**t shouldn't be in the air or water either but it is.
You said:
“It was hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you really don’t understand that E.coli 0157:H7 can spread from an infected person to another person through contact. This can happen with children (they put fingers in their mouths) and the elderly in convalescent homes (lack of hand washing by caregivers). Two of the four children who died from E.coli 0157:H7 in the 1993 Jack-in-the-box outbreak did not eat hamburgers. They played with children who did.”
Incidentally, what is your source for knowing that? (about the two children). Was this just assertion too? It is hard to follow how 157:H7 becomes so particularly transmissible when raw milk is concerned as opposed to its transmissibility through industrial milk or other industrially processed food stuffs. Pay close attention to the article I quoted:
"Erin Barringer of West Hartford, whose daughter contracted E. coli from a child who drank raw milk, according to health officials, is helping to campaign for the stricter legislation. “It can be frustrating at times because I think everybody’s lost sight of who the victims are,” said Ms. Barringer, whose daughter, Emma, was 2 years and 10 months old when she got sick, even though she herself never drank raw milk."
I think rather that folks have entirely lost sight of the transmissibility and potency and viability of 157:H7. It has been the over-industrialization of the food supply, the over-centralized regulation of food safety and the placement of responsibility for food safety into the hands of corrupt government officials that has killed our children. That’s how 157:H7 is transmitted.
When the government sells our children’s health into the hands of Monsanto-like barons at the expense of constitutional freedoms to produce one of the few foods that can build immunity precisely in this area of which we speak - will you wear a little white ribbon commemorating the loss of those political freedoms for which many, many men and women have willingly lost their lives to give us? And when government thugs go on a relentless jihad against one of the few foods that will build up our immunity to the very pathogens that the food mafia has unleashed upon our children because it threatens one of agro-businesses sacred cows, will you be standing at their graves with your white ribbon and contrived statistics about how some child’s poop is much, much dirtier when contaminated with traces of raw milk?
In the interest of Monsanto’s children, we should +specify+ the virulence of the raw milk vector – call it 157:H7:raw milk. Then we would know not to let our children play with other children who 1) use drugs, 2) do not use condoms 3) indulge in same-sex behavior or 4) drink raw milk or 5) know someone who drinks raw milk.
Is freedom itself dirty because it cost lives to purchase it? Tell you what we can do. I’ll protect my children from other children’s poop and you protect your children from other children who drink raw milk and let's leave the food mafias out of it. What do you say?
r,
Paul Hubbard
Virginia Peninsula
You’re replies to Miguel’s pertinent questions are rhetorical and a reflection of your hard line, dogmatic position with respect to the cause of disease.
What is needed here is for both of you to tag along with Mike Row from “Dirty Jobs” and explore as well as expose yourself to the reality of life. Go to the farm, fork and shovel shit for a few months, get into it up to your elbows, wipe the sweat and shit from your face and let’s just see what changes transpire in your attitude towards cow shit.
The insanity and unrealistic reasoning nurtured by the germ theory of disease is indicative in a quote from the following article,
http://inebriatedpress.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/the-importance-of-eating-shit/
It states, “The American food system is the safest in the world and we must continue to improve the quality and safety of our foods,” said Dr. David Acheson, Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Using radiation to kill all the bugs in our food will continue to be expanded and so will the use of strong disinfectants on our farms, in our food plants in America’s bathrooms next to our sinks and everyplace we might find a bug that could touch our bodies. I started drinking bleach water straight last year, just to kill the micro organisms in my own body. I feel like shit, but I won’t eat it or let it live in me if it slips in.”
Ken Conrad
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/17/EDNN16HTL5.DTL
Yes I agree. We do need to understand more about how these children become ill.
Here’s 3 more stories and 3 different age ranges.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/legal-cases/another-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-and-even-more-victims/
cp
"Go to the farm, fork and shovel shit for a few months, get into it up to your elbows, wipe the sweat and shit from your face and let’s just see what changes transpire in your attitude towards cow shit."
LOL - lets take it outside - rather than compare our "on the farm" resumes, I hereby challenge you to a Poo Duel! How should we match weapons - quantity/volume, source/animal type, # lactic acid bacteria/coliforms/pathogens per gram, consistency and odor (wet, dry, running. sticky, lumpy, pelleted, tubular, appular)...? Maybe a panel should be formed to decide the rules of engagement.
Joking around with you - pooped out on the serious stuff for the moment. BTW, who won that raw milk slogan contest? I can't remember the results of that unprecedented discussion of raw milk benefits.
Lykke,
Fair enough question, I think – and that they should be sought out and valued. By the same token, I also think testimonials about positive experiences with raw milk should be sought out and valued.
The regulator and industry-dominated research communities have regularly discounted and dismissed positive experiences with raw milk. I have witnessed MANY such testimonials by parents, oldsters, practitioners (in good standing with, and sometimes leaders of their professional organizations) and scientists. These testimonials are minimized as “anecdotal evidence” and considered of no consequence by rule-making agencies.
Yes, let’s have those many testimonials given credence and recognition in scientific studies that are used to write regulations.
And let’s make a real effort to separate propaganda from testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZTrY3TQpzw&NR=1