----------
>
> Jes' the facts, ma'am...thought the following "boutique chicken"
> news story, cut from the food safety network fsnet-l, would be of
> interest, regarding the assumption
> that free-range or "organic" chickens are less likely to be contaminated
> with harmful bacteria.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:20:14 -0500
> From: Douglas A Powell <dpowell@uoguelph.ca>
> Reply-To: Food Safety Network <FSNET-L@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA>
> Subject: FSnet Feb. 25/98
>
> CONTAMINATION IN CHICKEN
> Feb. 25 /98
> N.Y. Times/AP
> More coverage of the Consumers Union study of almost 1,000 chickens,
> purchased in 36 cities over a five-week period last fall, which found that
> 71 per cent of the chickens were contaminated with either of two
> harmful bacteria: 63 percent with campylobacter and 16 percent with
> salmonella. Eight percent of the chickens had both. Only 29 percent were
> free of contamination.
> The stories notes that public health officials estimated that
> campylobacter was responsible for 1.1 million to 7 million food-borne
> illnesses each year and between 110 and 1,000 deaths. Salmonella, they
> said, was responsible for 700,000 to 4 million illnesses and the deaths of
> as many as 2,000.
>
> ARE BOUTIQUE BIRDS BETTER? ONE BACTERIA STUDY RAISES QUESTIONS
> Feb. 25 /98
> Washington Post
> Carole Sugarman E01
>
> According to this story, if you buy free-range or premium-priced chickens
> because you think they're safer, think again.. Based on the same CR report
> (see above and FSnet passim) boutique birds were found to be more
> contaminated with bacteria than those from big brands like Perdue and
> Tyson. The story says that these are the most surprising results from the
> magazine's March issue, which otherwise reports what the federal
> government, the poultry industry and many consumers already know: that a
> significant portion of all raw chickens is contaminated with campylobacter
> and, to a lesser extent, salmonella. The story adds that of course, if
> you cook chicken thoroughly, and don't cross-contaminate, the risk of
> getting sick from either bacterium is virtually nil. That thorough cooking
> goes for the free-range and high-priced birds as well. And last month,
> the federal government instituted a new system of poultry inspections
> geared to get these microbes. Still, the findings regarding the boutique
> birds do run counter to perception. Linda Greene, program leader in
> Consumer Reports' food department, was quoted as saying that "Paying more
> for chicken doesn't guarantee you'll get a cleaner chicken." (same with
> any organic -- dp) So why did the boutique birds have higher
> contamination rates? Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Broiler
> Council was cited as saying that while "free-range" birds have access to
> the outdoors it may increase their chances of picking up bacteria such as
> salmonella from rats, mice, insects or birds, adding, "Big companies
> devoutly believe in bio-security." Edward Groth, director of technical
> policy and public service at Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer
> Reports, was quoted as saying that "maybe at smaller companies, they don't
> have as good quality control" (no kidding -- dp). George Oppenheimer,
> general manager of Wellington Farms Free Range, based in Mechanicsburg,
> Pa., was cited as candidly agreeing with both hypotheses. (Wellington
> Farms was the only free-range bird tested; the other three are
> premium-priced.) Oppenheimer was quoted as saying, "Frank Perdue was
> right. Birds are better off inside. It's more of a controlled environment.
> You don't know what they'll eat outside." Oppenheimer added that
> "free-range" was "more of a buzzword" than an animal husbandry concept,
> since even if given the chance, chickens don't like to roam around
> outside. And that's because birds, by their nature, flock together. They
> want to be near their food and water, which are usually inside. "They
> don't do any traveling . . . they don't do push-ups or jog." Oppenheimer
> was also cited as saying that technology costs money, adding, "Other
> plants use more chlorine in the water, some of the scalding equipment is
> better." But Oppenheimer was also quick to add that a "bigger issue" is
> made over salmonella than needs to be. "Who eats rare chicken?" he asked.
> "If you just cook it . . . you don't have a problem." The story goes on
> to quote Catherine Woteki, undersecretary for food safety at USDA, as
> saying that "in general, we thought the report was well done. It provides
> a lot of valuable information for consumers."
>
> ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
> Marla Rhodes
> Northeast Food System Partnership
> Information and Outreach Coordinator
> 617-628-5000 x2246
> mrhodes1@emerald.tufts.edu
>
> Interested in sharing ideas and information about community food security
> and sustainable food systems in the Northeast? Sign up to the email group
> nefood-l. Send the message SUBSCRIBE NEFOOD-L YOUR NAME to the following
> address: listproc@listproc.tufts.edu. Leave the subject line blank.
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".