draggonlaady: (Default)
2012-06-09 02:04 pm

Organic vs "conventional" round whatever-we're-at

From http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog (because who can resist a site called "barf blog"?)

Toxoplasmosis doesn't grab the headlines the way salmonella or E. coli outbreaks do, but new research suggests that some organic meats may be more likely to carry this parasite, which can then be transmitted to consumers who eat these meats, if undercooked.

Cari Nierenberg of My Health News Daily reports the authors of a paper published online May 22 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases write, "The new trend in the production of free-range, organically raised meat could increase the risk of Toxoplasma gondii contamination of meat.”

The researchers point out that eating undercooked meat — whether organic or conventionally raised — especially pork, lamb and wild game such as venison, is one of the main ways people become infected with the toxoplasma parasite. People can also contract the infection by not washing raw fruits and vegetables, which may have come in contact with soil contaminated by cat feces.

Cats can spread toxoplasmosis after eating other infected animals and then passing the parasite along in their feces. This can contaminate not only home litter boxes, but the soil or water if a cat goes outside.

Although perhaps as many as one in five Americans carry the parasite, few people have symptoms because the immune system in healthy people does a good job of preventing T. gondii from causing illness. Toxoplasmosis presents more of a threat to pregnant women and people with a weakened immune system, especially if they change cat litter boxes or touch contaminated soil when gardening.

The new research reviews the foods most likely to carry the parasite, and how people can prevent becoming sickened by it. The foods with the greatest chance of carrying toxoplasmosis parasites in the U.S. include raw ground beef or rare lamb; unpasteurized goat's milk; locally produced cured, dried or smoked meat; and raw oysters, clams or mussels.

Growing consumer demand for "free-range" and "organically raised" meats, especially pork and poultry, will probably increase the prevalence of T. gondii when people undercook and eat these foods, according to the study's authors, Dr. Jeffrey Jones, of the parasitic diseases branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and J.P. Dubey, of the USDA's Animal Parasitic Disease Laboratory.

That's because as more pigs or chickens are raised in less confined, more animal- friendly environments, they have greater access to grass, soil, feed or water that may be in contact with infected cat feces, or to rodents or wildlife infected with T. gondii.

Compared with chickens raised indoors, the prevalence of the parasite in free-range chickens is much higher, anywhere from 17 percent up to 100 percent, in some estimates. (But the risk is low for chicken eggs, the authors noted.)

Other research has shown that more organically raised pigs have tested positive for T. gondii than conventionally raised pigs.

Sheep also have a higher likelihood of being contaminated with toxoplasma, as do game meats such as deer, elk, moose and wild pig. Beef and dairy products have not yet played a main role in transmitting the infection, except for eating raw or undercooked ground beef.

"Toxoplasmosis in an under-recognized source of food-borne illness and attracts little public attention," said Douglas Powell, a professor of food safety at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. "People are not as familiar with this parasite, so we think it doesn't happen much," he explained.

Yet, toxoplasmosis is one of five "neglected parasitic diseases" targeted by the CDC as a public health priority.

By one recent U.S. estimate, toxoplasmosis was the second-leading cause of food-borne illness deaths (salmonella is first), claiming more than 300 lives a year. The parasite was also responsible for more than 4,000 hospitalizations annually, ranking it fourth among food pathogens.

As consumers shift their eating preferences, whether it's to organic foods or to less-processed foods, the microbial risks are altered, Powell said. "Whatever food- production system we come up with, some 'bugs' will find a way to adapt and flourish. So the key is continual vigilance."
draggonlaady: (Grinding Bones)
2011-04-21 12:57 pm

Lest any raw milk advocates feel picked on...

It's not just unpasteurized milk, it's any unpasteurized drink that presents health risks. This pasteurization thing, it has a purpose.

In other news, why the bejeezus are journalists not taught the very very basic basics of evaluating scientific studies before reporting on them?!? UGA study finds salmonella less prevalent in organic chicken: Organic chicken isn't just healthier for you - it's also safer, according to a new University of Georgia study.
Great! Yay! indisputable proof that organic is better in all ways! Except that if you read the article, you may notice that this grand study looked at only seven farms. We are not provided any information on how many chickens were involved. Already I have skepticism--not that small studies are useless, mind you, and this one may provide the impetus for a larger, more comprehensive look at some issues raised, but really? Seven farms, an unknown number of chickens, and you're trumpeting about health and safety differences?

Perhaps it would be pertinent to look at something said by Assistant Professor Walid Alali, who performed this study: "Because chickens spread salmonella horizontally, when there are fewer birds, it spreads less." I would infer from this that the organic farms had fewer hens, though that's not explicitly stated. Perhaps, then, the difference is not whether the hens are allowed to be treated with antibiotics, but instead has to do with population density? Sadly "MORE STUDY NEEDED!" is not once printed in this article.

"The organic feed rarely contains salmonella, while conventional feed is full of it, Alali said." That's interesting, and probably quite pertinent to the topic, so why aren't we given ANY more information about it at any point? What, exactly, does "full of it" mean here? I want numbers! Quantitative and qualitative analyses of feed used on all 7 farms, and the actual difference in rates and degree of salmonella contamination would be sterling, but given that this is just a small article, I'd settle for x% of organic and y% of non-organic feeds cultured positive for salmonella". I am denied even this cursory summary, however, and left to take Alali's word for it that non-organic chicken feed is "full of it".

Well. Okay, how about the title claim that organically raised birds are healthier? Not a single tidbit of information is offered in this article as to any nutritional difference in the meat or eggs of chickens raised in different situations. Not a single word, let alone a phrase or complete sentence. I begin to doubt the accuracy of the "Organic chicken isn't just healthier for you - it's also safer, according to a new University of Georgia study" statement. Did this study even frelling look at potential health effects of eating chicken from different sources? Ah, here we go: "Alali collected the chickens' feces, feed and water samples from each of the seven farms." Nope. No study whatsoever of nutritional value of meat or eggs. This headline has no bloody relevance to the study the article is supposed to be reporting! Son, I am disappoint.
I am especially disappointed as this totally unsupported claim is reinforced by the article illustration, which shows chicken legs in a frying pan, with the caption "UGA study finds salmonella less prevalent in chicken". Could you get more misleading about what the study actually studied if you tried?

But maybe I'm just being nitpicky and mean. Maybe what they really meant was that the chickens themselves are healthier, and it was just really (really) poor sentence structure? "Chickens themselves don't suffer from the infection - they're just carriers, Alali said." Oh. Well. Guess not then.

Speaking of misleading and meaningless statements, try this on for size: "The organic chickens also are fed organically grown food like corn and soybeans that is free of animal byproduct."
Are we to take from this statement that animal products are not organic? Boy, is Dr S gonna be confused by that when he goes to sell his organically raised calves this year! Then again, what does that mean in an article touting the benefits of organic chicken? Is chicken not an animal? Does this author even know what "organically grown food" means? Or what chickens are normally fed?
From the USDA's information page: "Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides..." Well, I guess that means that "organic" and "animal byproduct" are not mutually exclusive. So how about those soybeans, then? Oh, the main difference is that they don't use "most conventional pesticides". Right. Right. Because one would absolutely expect the use of insecticides and/or herbicides to make a significant difference in potential bacterial content of food. Very logical. If these chicken farmers choose not to use animal products in their feed, that is their choice and may have points in its favor on several levels, but being "organic" ain't one of them, honey.

In summary: A small study of potential interest, which raises questions for further study. Follow-ups may include whether these findings are consistent across a larger population of farms and/or farms in different areas. Whether size of farm/chicken population density is strongly correlated with incidence of salmonella. Whether a meat-free diet would be better for chickens. Whether there is a significant difference in bacterial contamination of chicken feeds from different sources, and whether organically grown ingredients processed into chicken food do or do not produce a chicken feed with lower bacterial contamination than chicken feed made from "conventional" ingredients. And whether journalists can be trained to write articles which actually pertain to and accurately relate the findings of scientific studies.

ETA: And why the bloody bejeezus is there no link to source material?! Yeah, the majority of readers are not going to bother reading the actual study results, but some of us would, and if you're reporting accurately, it can only help prove your point.