What a "Poo Duel" Tells Us About Different Philosophies of Food and Health
Friday, March 20, 2009 at 04:42PM 
In most cases, if two bloggers here decided to settle their philosophical differences via a duel or competition of some kind, I’d offer to referee.
But for a “Poo Duel" of the sort described by Ken Conrad and Lykke? I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t want to be in the middle of that one. Especially if it comes off as Ken recalls from his childhood experiences.
Behind the fun idea of a poo contest, though, are some intriguing differences in philosophy and approach.
As Ken puts it, “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.” His point, if I understand correctly, is that cow manure from the perspective of farmers is both a nutrient for the earth, a fertilizer, as well as a source of bacteria, good and bad, that help us build our immune systems.
When Lykke says, “let’s take it outside - rather than compare our ‘on the farm’ resumes, I hereby challenge you to a Poo Duel!” she is, of course, being humorous. But implicit is her view that the same cow manure Ken sees as a building block of growth and life, Lykke sees as a laboratory gauge, a key indicator of food-borne danger and disease.
Here is what David Acheson, associate commissioner of foods at the FDA, said at a conference last summer, in discussing discovery on a Mexican farm of salmonella that contaminated jalopeno peppers, “I think one has to realize that products like peppers and other things that are grown in the dirt, there is an inherent risk of them being contaminated with pathogens such as Salmonella.” Certainly a long way from the old adage that kids should "eat dirt" as part of the growing-up process that makes them more resistant to disease.
The philosophical differences mirror the differences in how the medical community approaches health. There’s long been talk in some quarters of “prevention.” This is understood to include lifestyle steps like exercise and weight reduction, but I would also add strengthening the immune system, even via with poo fights Ken reminisces about. Of course, most of the real focus of the health system is on treating disease that results from ineffective prevention, and which might be said to include tracking the pathogens in poo, that Lykke is heavily focused on.
Well, if Ken and Lykke decide to do their Poo Duel, The Complete Patient will be the first sponsor, if not the referee.
.
Reader Comments (25)
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/03/20/segments/126709
Indeed, if any immune system strengthening occurs during the duel, it would be from good exercise. The clean-up after is common sense. Not promoting Poo Duels for kids, but do think they should be around animals too while growing up (and as grown-ups). With common sense: handwashing following animal contact, safe food to eat to replenish after play...
Also, on the Acheson quote - saw some photos from that situation in Mexico - there were cattle pooping in the water used to irrigate the plants and soil. Was Mexico trying to improve the US immune system by sending us those peppers?
We have a friend who marks out a large "bingo" court with powdered lime squares, and sells chances on the squares - if the horse wandering on the court dumps on your square, you're a winner.
Cow chip tossing contests - longest throw wins.
Etc. etc.
what you have forgotten, or what your "big brain" has allowed you to retionalize is that you are different from the animals. you are an animal... do you wash your hands after human contact? likely you should, most humans are far "dirtier" then a healthy free range critter. (petting zoos are not conductive to animal health and should be rethought as well)
you, like so many "westerners" have forgotten where you come from and what you are.
how do you imagine one builds a healthy immune system?
what is a pathogen?
In true paradigmatic form, Dr. Nestle concludes that pasteurization was an extremely important public health measure that virtually eliminated TB outbreaks in the early 1900s. That is of course, a partial truth at best. Dr. N makes no mention of the fact that the milk linked with TB was a product of an early form of industrial agriculture—sick, confined cows fed an unnatural diet that included distillery byproducts—and that there was no significant problem whatsoever at the time (or for that matter, now) with milk from pastured, healthy, “country” cows. (For the full history read Dr. Ron Schmid's book, The Untold Story of Milk.)
If true science had powered the dialogue then rather than “standard” science, our early 20th century experts might have discussed why “pathogenic” tubercles became an issue in one sort of production model, but not in another. Some experts did, of course, and were squashed, because then, just as today, the industrial model was simply not a suspect. In the dominant, “standard” scientific mind, milk was milk, feed was feed, cows were cows. (Mankind seems to have a knack for figuring out how to make cream sink to the bottom.) That narrow-mindedness has since spread like a bad infection through medical schools, and through the larger culture. Now, just like in the old days, our experts sometimes cannot even imagine that a different truth exists, even when that different truth hits them between the eyes, for example the plain existence of “carriers” who harbor “pathogens” but somehow do not become ill. (Dr. N interestingly said later in the same interview, without a hint of irony or cognitive dissonance, that “[milk] is going to be healthier if the cows are raised on really wonderful conditions...”).
How long must we, can we, endure “standard” science? How long before our scientific solutions completely destroy what is left of our natural defenses?
http://www.mundanedaily.com/?p=326
You're in on the duel. I love the idea of tossing hardened cow pats (and maybe dry horse apples and goat pellets, alas though, they might fall apart - lets go with the cow pats). Of course, I'm assuming I'll beat Ken and move to the next level (or do this as teams - cp, you in?).
I probably shouldn't simultaneously make light of the situation with illnesses and also comment on a serious outbreak report (which probably would have been ignored and filed in a dark corner under "normal" circumstances).
Hugh, this interests me: "petting zoos are not conductive to animal health and should be rethought as well." Hadn't thought of it before, but you have an important point there. As disclosure, my poo resume includes growing up (and still) being around lots of animal poo, and do not fear it as much as flying into Chicago Ohare, which is a near certainty of illness to follow. Indeed, human travel IMHO will emerge as the ultimate disease spreader. I'm not original in that thought - it has been discussed extensively relating to SARS, Avian Influenza, etc.
Back to those petting zoos - is there something about them that has caused the outbreaks (vs. something about the kids visiting them - like them being from suburban/urban environments, never around livestock))?
I still have no idea what the "immune system" talk is about...can you translate it into a clear public health message...beyond: drink raw milk and eat fermented vegetables and all will be well.
US NEWS and WORLD REPORT Raw Milk is Gaining Fans but Science Says------
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/living-well-usn/2009/03/20/raw-milk-is-gaining-fans-but-the-science-says-its-dangerous.html
John Sheehan "Its like playing Russian Roulette" BOO and " There are absolutely no health benefits from consuming raw milk" Yes John and the earth is flat also!
Bill Would Abolish Limints on Raw Milk Times Argus Online Vermont
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090320/NEWS02/903200360/0/SPORTS
Raw Emotions Over "Real Milk"
http://www.lancasterfarming.com/node/1811
The above link gives a brief discription of the immune system.
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/0900/0955.asp?index=5429")
"To maintain the strongest immune system possible, you must have a nutritious diet, get regular exercise, and reduce stress in your life. You must attend to all three of these areas to achieve your optimum health."
What goes into your body affects how it reacts. Thus if you eat junk foods, to include processed foods, take medications, not eat a variety of foods; it will eventually do harm in your body. Your immune system will not be able to function correctly and you will be opened to diseases, illnesses. Processed foods IMO should be banned.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/immune/the_immune_system.pdf
A few years ago, a dear friend recieved the DX of renal cell carcinoma. She thought she ate right, exercised, etc. Was it the chemicals she was exposed to for years as an OR RN,MSN? Or chemicals she was exposed to while living on or near military bases? Or processed foods eaten over the years? Contaminates in the drinking water? Was it a combination of the above and the added stress of becoming a widow and loosing her parents? I think it was all of the above, the constant assault on her immune systen took its toll. When she was first DX'd she made the statement that it was probably an immune malfunction. She was a very wise woman.
On the previous post I asked for the raw milk side of the argument on the 2006 outbreak in California and want to note now that this argument about "what other factors make us susceptible" is interesting, but does not satisfy me on the 2006 case. Up until now, the WAPF (in the press release I linked to) and OPDC have not made the "miguel argument," they have in fact said that the pathogen was never in the milk. In fact, they have specifically said it was in the spinach. They have said it publicly and even put it on the wire. I assume they have a specific argument and evidence and I would like to hear more about it. I am a consumer in California and this case did impact me and my family. I take it personally that I was led to believe for so long that there was strong evidence of some other cause and, yet, no one is forthcoming with said evidence.
Donde esta?
Steve,
If this was done, do you think they would broadcast it to the population? To state the cause would impair the processing phood industries and big pharma. Lots of money to be lost.
I can imagine a simple experiment that should tell us whether agents that suppress the lactic acid bacteria are an important factor in food poisoning.Take two samples of the same raw milk,in one put a dose of ecoli 0157:H7.In the other put the same dose of 0157:H7 plus an agent that inhibits the activity of lactic acid bacteria and also does not bother the ecoli.Incubate the two samples for the same amount of time at the same temp and compare the number of cells of ecoli 0157:H7 in each.I know that the number of 0157:H7 in the second sample will increase greatly because that is how the rapid test for ecoli 0157:H7 is done.I know that the lactic acid bacteria naturally in the first sample will at the very least reduce the number of ecoli 0157:H7 in that sample.The ecoli is present in both samples ,but it only becomes a problem when the lactic acid suppressing agent is present.To me this is very strong evidence that points to a different cause other than the milk.
The opponents of raw milk have worked very hard to get everyone to keep the discussion centered on the presence of the bacteria,but if it's presence is not enough to assure illness some other factor must be the real cause.Once we start looking for foods that those outbreak victims ate along with the milk,I'm sure that there will be a long list of lactic acid bacteria inhibiting agents that are suspect.
I say my drinking raw milk wouldn't depend on the results because I am not all too sure they would work out the way you are suggesting. The reason I say this is that I have OPDC's BSK report right here on their pathogen challenge test and the results for ecoli show that they do drop by Day 4 but they are back up again by Day 7. Here's an example of some of the data:
Day 0: 1,800,000
Day 4: 430,000
Day 7: 1,700,000
That's colostrum. There's another colostrum and two milks that show similar patterns. They don't all get back up to their starting levels, but they are all back in the ballpark of their starting levels by Day 7. Ask Mark for a copy.
I actually don't care either if the entire argument is centered around pathogens. I drink it. I like it and I feel better for it.
Instead of each of us who are interested in OPDC’s BSK report asking Mark for it, would you please post your source of the report? A URL would be more convenient for everyone.
What is important is the balance between the numbers of the lactic acid bacteria and the opportunistic bacteria.As long as the lactic acid bacteria outnumber the opportunistic bacteria 1000 to 1,I would not be concerned.I would expect the numbers of all bacteria to increase with time up until the lactic acid content is too high for them to reproduce rapidly.Even though the absolute numbers of ecol 0157:H7 have increased from day 4 to day 7,I am sure that the numbers of lactic acid bacteria have increased at a higher rate and so outnumber the ecoli by even more than they did on day 4.The lactic acid bacteria are winning in terms of shear numbers and since there is a limited source of food,eventually the ecoli will be eliminated.The only thing that could make this change would be the introduction of an agent that would inhibit the lactic acid bacteria.
On page 304 of the 2003 version, it states this about the test Amanda Rose is referring to:
“McAfee recently took samples of his milk to a laboratory in Fresno where technicians introduced pathogens into the milk—Salmonella and E.coli 0157:H7. The organisms could not be found in the milk the next day—they could not survive.”
There seems to be a discrepancy in the interpretation of the test results. These numbers do not indicate the numbers could not be found the next day.
Day 0: 1,800,000
Day 4: 430,000
Day 7: 1,700,000
Then on page 304 of the book, it goes on to state:
“A researcher from the University of California at Davis then came to the farm and took serum samples from several cows. She discovered that the animals had developed no antibiotic resistance. What this means is that the immune systems were so strong that the good bugs the cows naturally harbor are able to kill of potential pathogens such as Salmonella and E.coli 0157:H7.”
But this isn’t what the test results state. By day 7, the number of E.coli 0157:H7 were back to almost the same number as the first day.
I’m curious who wrote this section of the book, Ron Schmid or Sally Fallon? Sally Fallon was the editor and her publishing company published the book.
http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/
I don’t know how everyone else interprets all of this, but it appears that someone was not telling the truth in the book. What would be the motivation for doing so? Why would anyone want to misrepresent facts and make it appear that raw milk is safer than it really is?
cp