Best wishes,
Greg
>The following message was sent to you from Greg (hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com)
courtesy of @griculture Online, http://www.agriculture.com/.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
>Of stealing the 'good name' of organic food by Johan Bakker
>Don’t believe everything you read.
>
>I was reading the “Wall Street Journal” the other day. Not because I have
this vast invesment portfolio that I need to track, but because the
“Journal” is very handy in that it can often explain complicated issues in
terms of two simple things - greed and lust for power - that I can
understand.
>
>My eye fell upon a short piece on the op-ed pages. I’m not quite sure what
it was doing there, but the gist of this two-inch piece was that a new
report from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicated that persons
who consume “organically-grown” food are eight times more likely than the
general population to suffer food poisoning due to the E. Coli bacterium.
>
>
>At the time, I didn’t think too much about it. I don’t buy
“organically-grown” food per se, although I have no quibble with those who
do this. Now, everything that we grow here is “organically” grown, but that
doesn’t reflect any deep-seated philosophical position - it’s more a
reflection of the fact that we have all the organic fertilizer we need,
thank you very much, and we have no need to buy anything more. If people
think they will be happier and healthier eating food which is grown
“organically” and without the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides,
well, good luck to them. I figure it’s a matter of belief, like the dietary
beliefs of persons of the Jewish and Moslem faiths. And if farmers are
modifying their operations to satisfy this desire, well, good luck to them
too. I do note that “organic” produce in my local supermarket typically runs
between 50 and 100% more costly than conventional produce, so obviously no
one is going broke doing this.
>
>But later, in my comfy arm chair, with a cold Rolling Rock at my elbow and
an oofy Doberman snoring away on my feet, I got to thinking about this and
realized what it would mean - if it were true. After all, what this says is
that farmers who grow their produce “organically” must be eight times more
ignorant and careless in the matter of sanitation, hygiene and good food
handling practices than the average farmer. The inspectors from the US
Department of Agriculture who deal with their produce must be eight times
less competent than their colleagues who do not inspect “organically-grown”
products. And the packers and shippers of “organically-grown” foodstuffs
must be eight times less hygienic and eight times more careless than any
other food packers and shippers.
>
>I said to myself, “something is not kosher here.”
>
>A call to the Centers for Disease Control
>
>So I contacted the CDC - it’s not hard, they have a huge Web site and they
welcome inquiries. I spoke with Sharon Hoskins in their Division of Media
Relations, and this is what she told me:
>
>
>“The Wall Street Journal Report is incorrect. CDC has not
>conducted any studies on organic/natural foods and E. coli (or other
>foodborne pathogens). The WSJ is quoting from a publication called
American
>Outlook which is published by the Hudson Institute. We have contacted the
>editors of that journal, but have yet to get a reply. The CDC recommends
>that safe and hygienic food handling methods be practiced by both those
>providing food products (growers, transporters, etc.) and those consuming
>them (e.g., washing food and vegetables, thoroughly cooking all meats,
etc.)
>
>
>"We have no evidence that organic or naturally grown foods constitute a
>greater risk for foodborne pathogens than commercially grown foods.”
>
>
>In other words, the story’s a ringer. Say what you like about the CDC, they
certainly do know the meaning of the word “thorough”. Take a look at the
vast reams of information on every possible aspect of health and disease
that they churn out every day. If they say they have no evidence of
something causing disease, you can be pretty certain that it’s about as safe
as one could desire.
>
>I think it’s a pretty bad deal when someone can attribute facts to an
organization, which we all trust to give us reliable and complete
information about matters of health and disease, which are simply not true.
Who benefits by this? The public is certainly not well-served by this sort
of misinformation. I don’t know who or what the Hudson Institute may be, but
what viewpoint or position was furthered by their attribution of data which
was incorrect to a respected organization like the CDC? And who was helped
by the implied suggestion that a whole bunch of farmers, packers and
shippers who are supplying a public demand for specific food products are
simply incompetent?
>
>
>Shakespeare put it best when he wrote
>
> Who steals my purse, steals trash.
>‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
>But who steals my good name, steals that
>Which enricheth him not, and makes me poor indeed.
>
>So, next time you read something that appears authoritative, but that seems
at odds with common sense, a certain degree of healthy skepticism might be
in order.
>
>Have a superlative day.
>
>llater,
>
>llamas
>
> - 12/14/1998 06:35 a.m.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
>Copyright 1998, Meredith Corporation. All rights reserved. Be sure to visit
@griculture Online at http://www.agriculture.com for all the latest
agriculture news.
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail