Must ever-more-rigorous food safety regulations inevitably lead to the sterilization of our food supply? That question has tinged much of the debate on this blog, as well as in other quarters. It’s served to create extremes–if you worry about the expansion of food safety enforcement leading to sterilization, then you must be against improving the safety of our food, and in favor of more people being sickened from pathogens, goes one line of argument.
Clearly, we need to gain some sense of balance in providing appropriate safety, while not losing out on the health benefits afforded by healthy whole food. An upcoming book about food safety seeks to articulate that sense of balance. The author, Ben Hewitt, who has offered comments on this blog, and whom I have gotten to know during his book research, offers an excerpt from the book that explores the dangers of sterilization of our food supply.
On June 7, Rodale will publish my book Making Supper Safe: One Man’s Search for the Truth About Food Safety. I’d originally thought the book would be about the pathogenic bacteria that often contaminate our food, and what needs to be done to ensure consumer safety. To a certain extent, this is still true. But as I got deeper into my reporting, I became intrigued by the interplay between human life, the bacteria that inhabit us, and the bacteria we encounter on a daily basis, both in our food and otherwise. The following excerpt, which David has kindly offered to post, is from one of the chapters that explore this issue. Thank you for reading. – Ben Hewitt
PS: One of the great pleasures in writing this book was the opportunity to get to know a few of the characters that post here regularly. In particular, I am thankful to Bill Marler, Mark McAfee, and David Gumpert for their extreme generosity with their insight and time.
There are plenty of people within the biological science community who are certain that the conventional wisdom regarding pathogenic bacteria is, to put it bluntly, killing us. One of those people is Lynn Margulis, a distinguished university professor in the department of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts.
“This whole idea of good bacteria versus bad bacteria isn’t just wrong, it’s suicidal,” Margulis told me. As Margulis explains it, microbes and the communities they comprise (which is to say, us) are constantly evolving. When we meddle with that process, we run the risk of unintended consequences that might take hundreds of years to play out. “Some of the things that we now consider pathogens could be key to our survival in the future. I’m not denying there are toxic bacteria, but there are natural reasons for it. When we think of these bacteria as something to be defeated, we are not thinking ecologically at all. The war on pathogenic bacteria is built on lie upon lie upon lie.”
Essentially, Margulis is saying that our attempt to thwart pathogenic bacteria is only beneficial in the short term; over the long haul, it may actually degrade our ability to weather incoming invaders, or create even more deadly strains of the very bacteria we are trying to protect ourselves from. Antibiotics provide a convenient analogy: In the short run, they are tremendously beneficial – nothing short of lifesaving – but after only a few decades of widespread use, we are beginning to recognize significant downsides. One is the possibility of secondary infections that take root in the aftermath of antibiotic use; this is because the drugs have knocked out good bacteria along with bad, and good bacteria is, at least in part, what protects us from bad bacteria. The second, of course, is the fact that some bacteria have evolved to the point where antibiotics can no longer kill them.
Indeed, the issue of antibiotic use has a direct connection to food borne pathogens. “One of the top predictors for salmonella poisoning is antibiotic use within the past 30 days,” Justin Sonnenburg told me. Sonnenburg is an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, and author an article published in a 2010 edition of Nature called “Genetic Potluck” that considers how diet affects an individual’s microbiota, which is the term for a community of living organisms within a particular region.
According to Sonnenburg, the very real possibility is that sterilized food acts in much the same way as antibiotics. No, it probably doesn’t actively kill beneficial bacteria in our guts, but it does subtly, over time, shift the balance of microbes in our system. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that fewer and fewer of us live in close contact with the natural world, where these bacteria proliferate. Numerous studies have shown that children raised on farms have significantly lower incidence of asthma and other chronic conditions associated with immune response. And when I say “significant,” I mean significant: One Austrian study found that the prevalence of asthma was almost 75% lower in farm kids. Simply put, humans are no longer exposed to as much or as varied bacteria as they once were, and the net effect may well be a society that is more vulnerable than ever to the sort of disease can insert itself into a bad batch of hamburger and then quietly but quickly spread across the country.
“One of the things we tend to forget,” said Sonnenburg, “is that we co-evolved with all these microbes, good and bad. Our ancestors almost certainly ate a far greater diversity of microbes than we do today. For instance, they used fermentation as a preservation method, and fermented foods are extremely microbially diverse. How many people ferment foods anymore?” It was a rhetorical question, so I didn’t say anything, but I knew the right answer: Not very many at all. Sonnenburg continued. “Sterilization and pasteurization of our food have undoubtedly been beneficial to humans over the short term, but there has been a long term cost, and that cost is exposure to microbes.”
Ben Hewitt and his family live on a diversified 40-acre farm in Vermont, where they produce dairy, beef, pork, lamb, vegetables, berries, maple syrup, and firewood. He is the author of The Town That Food Saved, which chronicles a rural Vermont town’s attempts to revitalized its economy through local food.
Now,looking at the situation from a different perspective,wouldn't it make sense to say that it was "antibiotic poisoning" that the patient was suffering from?
I agree with Margulis,there are no good or bad bacteria.It is the equilibrium of a complex system that we are trying to maintain .So why label some bacteria as "pathogens"?Too large a dose of any antibiotic,sanitizer,antibacterial,preservative or agricultural chemical residue will upset this equilibrium .So why don't we recognize that we are dealing with this type of poisoning rather than a "bacterial poisoning"?
A BIG part of the problem with food these days is that we have substituted chemical preservatives for the traditional fermentation preservation methods.These chemical preservatives are what is upsetting the equilibrium in our bodies.When people are sickened by these chemicals in the food,blaming the illness on a bacterium only invites the usual response which is to increase the dose of the chemical in the food.The result is even more illness related to food.We are witnessing that every day.
http://www.grist.org/farm-bill/2011-04-04-budget-fight-threatens-turn-farm-bill-into-industrial-ag
When I presented another Raw Milk Share the Secret program this weekend in Sacramento, the real consumers listened to a farmer and heard the truth….they are now dollar voting. They are choosing to not buy the dead supermarket sterilized CAFO PMO gut fillers anymore.
Teaching is the absolute name of this effort. The internet, this blog, books, You Tubes, Farmers Markets, Jamie Olivers Food Revolution series, homes, churchs, schools, Robin Obriens wake-up call….these are the places we teach.
This is a horrible fight…one who's price is paid by the children of the next generation.
Teach teach teach…we can not teach enough or fast enough or furious enough. Teach the grass roots to spend their money on living foods. To spend a dime on sterilzed food is like helping Jim Jones Mix the Cool-aide.
Teach Teach Teach. Start by asking a question….a medical illness question ( suffered by many….not hard to find this question, asthma, IBS etc ) of the student. Then solve it with whole foods and natural prevention and good science. If your message is true, then the dollar voting will turn the course of history.
Mark
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/5/japan_releases_radioactive_water_several_million
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/8989315/consumer/meat-glue
Reminds me of how the dairy processing industry intends to use ultra-filtration to make faux "raw milk" as drinking raw milk becomes more popular.
Sounds to me like humans could be seen by bugs as a vulnerable monoculture; at the same risk as our monoculture plant cousins. Think potato blight, except we are the spuds.
Go here and add comment:
http://www.dairyherd.com/dairy-news/association/NMPF-and-IDFA-criticize-New-Jersey-raw-milk-bill-urge-Governor-to-oppose-it-119207494.html?ref=494
-Blair
Think of the NMPF and the IDFA and their present resistance to sound science as the
"tip of the titanic."
I see Professor Heckman's and marks comments posted at
http://www.dairyherd.com/dairy-news/association/NMPF-and-IDFA-criticize-New-Jersey-raw-milk-bill-urge-Governor-to-oppose-it-119207494.html?ref=494
I will contact a man who in his fifties (just several years ago) was pulled out of a very short path to deaths door by raw milk. He should be able to make an effective statement.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
These chemical additives are used precisely because they act as antibacterials, anti-fungals, and antioxidants. And while there has long been suspicion about their direct negative health effects (including carcinogenesis and natal toxicityN.B. for an interesting read look up the story of potassium bromates banning in Europe and elsewhere but not in the USA) too little attention is being paid to their effects on commensal microbial systems. (And then who knows even if all those common non-preservative food additives like bleaching agents, stabilizers, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, pH balancers, even sweeteners might not create microbial distress?)
In the manufactured and processed food business chemical preservatives are considered home runsgenerally foolproof preservatives. I doubt we can depend on food corporations then to embrace the idea that we ought to be investigating effects beyond the mere extension of shelf life. A lay-guide to these issues, especially as we begin to find broad clinical evidence of microbial revenge in the form of antibiotic-resistant organisms and increasing susceptibility of humans and animals to infectious disease, is overdo. I look forward to reading Ben's book.
All I can say is ouch…it must really hurt to work in the International Dairy Foods Association marketing department or at the National Dairy Processors Federation.
There is not one supportive comment. They have been painted red and run arround the town naked by a Rutgers PhD, a CA Raw Milk dairy guy, Colorado Raw Milk activists, national raw milk and food activists and others. Not one morsel of support for their dead food agenda.
Now thats progress. I truly hope that they commit marketing suicide and get the FDA and the NCIMS to set standards for Ultra Filtered half pasteurized faux raw milk….that will signal their white flag and the end of the era of pasteurized milk.
Our CAFO-PMO-FDA-Food Inc opposition will be scattered, confused, injured and weakened. They will have tried in vein to make raw milk and use our marketing advantage but in doing so will have condemned themselves and their 100 years war on bacteria using extreme heat.
The internet will provide no cover and our consumers will then hear loud and clear…big dairy goes raw ( well fake raw ). It will not be very hard to find that they have gone fake raw and that will be their indictment with no place to hide.
Please FDA, CAFO big dairy do faux raw…..please please please. Please FDA take the microphone and explain to the nation why raw milk ( faux ) is so much better than dead milk.
Please Land-O-Lakes start making and selling half dead ultra-filtered faux raw milk…please explain to us with a multi million dollar Mooootopia Faux Raw Milk campaign why raw milk is so much better than dead milk.
I can not wait. Real raw milk sales will explode and Dr. Price will smile as we return to real raw fresh milk from local farmers that give a damn about real Americans.
Mark
Personally, I'm surprised that Organic Valley hasn't pursued that technology for some of their fluid milk markets that are geographically close to production centers. I suppose it would be too much work for them to have a different product line for less processed milk… heck, they could cut it with the UHT crap milk, and do a cream-line minimally pasteurized milk for certain markets where they don't need the shelf life, but they haven't even done that. Why would we expect them to do ultra-filtration?
I bet you are right — Land O' Lakes and Dean's are going to be the ones jumping on that bandwagon.
As they say, immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I wish for something that will truly undo UHT and CAFO locked up Market positions. Raw milk or even faux raw milk undoes UHT market investment.
Trust me.
Mark
What say you about Q Fever? Do we need to test for that?
Thank you,
Blair
I am not aware of any case of Q-fever infection from raw milk.
The things raw milk producers need to be concerned about primarily are E. Coli, Campy, and Salmonella. It is also good to test for TB and Brucellosis in the herd annually.
The test for Q fever might be able to tell you if you or your animal have been exposed to Coxiella burnetii.But is exposure a problem? Not under normal conditions.In fact the introduction of factory farming methods to goat farming in the Netherlands brought on the first serious outbreak of Q fever in goats or people.Because we believe that some bacteria are "pathogens",the cause of the disease must be a pathogen.This is just a distraction.It is a very complex explanation for the illnesses that is hard to argue with because we are not microbiologists.But we are farmers,we do understand the needs of the animals in our care.The farms that are having trouble with this disease house a thousand or so goats inside a building and feed them stored feed.Would any of us be healthy if we never ate fresh food and never went outside in the sunshine? Of course the animal's immune system isn't functioning very well.Of course it doesn't have the necessary nutrients in it's diet to maintain it's health even though it's scientifically formulated feed contains all of the "nutrients" and artificial vitamins it requires.
http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publish/article_68828.shtml
There is a heap of alarm about Q fever on the internet; all connected to raw milk – but very low incidence of disease. The govt is spending our taxes well, que no?
RE the survey offering farmers $25 to drive into the city and spend an hour and a half to explain why they drink raw/pasteurized milk – (either that, or subject themselves to an onerous propaganda lecture on the dangers of raw milk…..or an interrogation)
"We truly do not know very much about how farmers make the choice to drink raw or pasteurized milk — there's just nothing in the literature," said Lydia Medeiros, a scientist with the university's Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center and Ohio State University Extension, and a professor of human nutrition in the College of Education and Human Ecology. The study of farm families is part of a broader project on raw milk consumption in Ohio.
Why are they so dumb?
-Blair
I thought that was odd too. I think because Texas has a raw milk bill on the agenda this year.
-Blair
I called today = the voice-mail was on. Perhaps someone closer to them, can call and get hold of that information, which is of utmost importance to us, for our Constitutional Challenge to the law, here in British Columbia