Food-borne illness is not limited to organic-certified foods nor is it limited to non-certified foods. In recent years it’s become fashionable to claim that cases of food-borne illness are the result of modern large-scale agriculture, while it has been basically taboo to even consider the possibility that food labeled “organic” might actually have higher probability of carrying pathogens.

But dare I point out, has anyone else noticed this seems to be happening rather a lot lately?

Ground Beef Recall Issued for Nature’s Harvest Organic Beef

Sprouts linked to Salmonella outbreak

Boncheff fresh herbs recalled over salmonella

94 Cases of Salmonella Linked to Alfalfa Sprouts; Cilantro, Parsley Recall Expanded

E. Coli Risk Causes Cheese Recall

Salmonella scare prompts J&D Produce to recall Little Bear brand of vegetables

If you read the above articles, you’ll note that in all these cases, the products in question are of the “organic” variety.

This is not to single these products out as being the only ones which have the potential to carry pathogens, they certainly are not.   The fact of the matter is that both non-certified foods and certified foods can be contaminated with pathogens, but it’s relatively rare.

Still, it’s a growing problem.  Even as organic food becomes more popular.   Could it be that organic certified foods represent a higher (even if still relatively low) risk?

To some that might seem like blasphemy, as many organic food advocates claim that organic is safer and less likely to have pathogens, which they associate with big “factory farming.”

But there are some things about organic foods which could present a greater risk.

Some things to consider:

(more…)

Recently I came across an article that seems to be all too typical of the beliefs of many in the “organic” and “locally grown” movement.   Many seem to have a rather unrealistic view of just what farming is all about.

Via “Mother Nature Network”:

Gwyneth Paltrow’s organic farm dreams

Even though Gwyneth Paltrow currently bides her time between homes in New York City and London, the star of the upcoming flick “Country Song” admits that her future may be in farming.

“I would love it,” enthuses Paltrow of rustic living. “My dream is to have land somewhere outside of Nashville and have a big organic farm outside of the city.”

Paltrow may be drawing some inspiration from fellow Hollywood star Nicole Kidman, who owns a 36-acre farm about 45 minutes outside Nashville with husband/country music star Keith Urban.

Let me just start off by saying that I have nothing against Gweneth Paltrow or Nicole Kidman moving out to a rural area and purchasing some land with the intention of growing some crops on it. It’s not hard at all to see why rural areas have appeal. They offer a lot of land, privacy and space to stretch out.

But these pieces of property, purchased by wealthy individuals who have no background in agriculture really aren’t farms. They’re more like country estates. They may grow some food, but that does not make them farms. A farm is, first and foremost, a business. Farmers don’t grow crops for fun or enjoyment. They grow them for profit, to sell and support themselves. It’s not a leisurely job either. It involves a lot of risk and requires skill and knowledge. Farmers must not only be skilled at growing their crops, but must be have to manage the finances and markets that come with growing and selling goods in a large market.

(more…)

Despite the fact that many anti-technology groups have been calling for a ban to all genetic modification of food crops (except for random mutation and selective breeding, which is apparently the good kind), there’s mounting evidence of the major environmental benefits of genetically enhanced organisms for agriculture.

The European Corn Borer has been the scourge of corn cultivation for decades.   The organism is a type of moth which lays eggs on the leaves of plants, especially corn resulting in a larva that feeds on the plant.    The borer was first detected in the United States in 1917 and has since then, spread across North America.   It’s become the single largest pest for corn cultivators and over the decades, thousands of tons of insecticide has been used to fight the borer.  Despite aggressive chemical controls, it has continued to take  a large toll on corn crops, resulting in valuable food crops going to waste and more cultivation being required to replace what is lost.

In the past few years a new method has arrived for fighting the corn borer.  Genetically modified corn has been produced which contains genes derived from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis. The modified corn produces a protein in its leaves that is toxic to the corn borer and other moths which may eat the corn. It has proven highly effective and safe for human consumption, but has still been the target of numerous anti-genetic technology groups.

A new study has reinforced the effectiveness of the crop, which has shown some very dramatic effects in just a few short years.

(more…)

This story has recently been making the rounds in various news outlets.

Via Fox News:

Radioactive Boars Rampaging Through Germany
It sounds like the plot of a B-movie, yet it’s bizarrely true: Radioactive boars are on the loose and thriving in Germany’s forests.

A succession of mild winters has left Germany scrambling to deal with a skyrocketing wild boar population. Tales of swarming beasts rampaging through city streets and attacking citizens occur with alarming regularity.

The problem has been aggravated by the lingering effects of the Chernobyl disaster from twenty-five years ago; a large portion of the wild animals are contaminated by radioactivity.

Poisonous radiation leaves the beasts completely inedible (wild boar is considered a delicacy in Germany), and the phenomenon is becoming expensive for the German government. In the last hunting season, 650,000 boar were shot versus 287,000 in the previous year. And due to atomic energy regulations, the government must buy contaminated animals from hunters who catch them.

Berlin compensated hunters to the tune of over $500,000 in 2009, writes German newspaper Der Spiegel — quadruple the payment in 2007.

Though the Chernobyl explosion happened a quarter century ago, high levels of radiation remain in the region’s vegetation. And wild boars are especially susceptible because of their proclivity for mushrooms and truffles, which are especially efficient at absorbing radiation.

Sounds scary, doesn’t it?

It should be noted that despite the descriptions and headlines of boar “rampaging” or “storming” Germany, the hogs themselves are no more prone to rampaging or storming towns and cities than the non-radioactive variety (or rather less radioactive, since all animals are radioactive). They generally live in sparsely settled areas and, although the population of boar in central Europe has risen in recent years, they’re not tearing through homes and eating people alive or anything like that.    Boar can certainly be aggressive, nasty animals and their increase in population has lead to some concern over their damage to property or danger to people, but that is not a new concern and is not related to radioactivity.

There is no rampage.

The primary isotope that seems to be o concern is Cesium-137. With a half-life of 30.7 years, close to half the Cs-137 from the Chernobyl accident has already decayed away and it will continue to decrease, both due to radioactive decay and the continued dilution in the environment. As time goes on, sedimentation and erosion will tend to cover or wash away much of the Cs-137 from the area and make it less available to life forms.

Still, if the levels are high enough, it could be dangerous. Cs-137 is similar chemically to potassium and has a fairly high biological uptake in both plants and animals. It emits strong beta and gamma radiation and is produced as a fission byproduct. Today Cs-137 is the single largest contributor to gamma radiation left over from the Chernobyl accident, as most other fission byproducts have long decayed away.

How radioactive the Boars in question actually are:
(more…)

At the risk of being called an environmental blasphemer, I’d like to propose something shocking:  the extinction of a species, entirely due to human activity may not always be a bad thing.  In fact, it may be a very good thing.   We have come to be taught that all species deserve to exist (not sure where the “deserve” comes from) and as such, any species that reaches the point of being critically low in number may qualify for the designation endangered species, providing it with protection under both national laws and international conventions.

In many, perhaps most cases, this protection is well warranted.   Many species are enjoyed by humans for their unique properties or their place in nature.  Others are vital to the balance of ecosystems or play a vital role in nature.  Still others may provide vast amounts of data to science on matters of evolution, biology or even practical data, applicable to medical treatment or biological control of pests.   It would be unwise to slate any species for intentional extermination without first considering whether it might have such importance and perhaps preserving some specimens, yet this does not preclude the possibility that extinction may be the best thing for humanity and nature, at least with a few species.

Numerous species of plant, animal, fungus and microbe are, dare I say it:  useless and better off wiped off the face of the planet.  Pathogens rank high here as do some parasites, such as intestinal worms, which are not prey or food for any species and play little role in the ecosystem, other than occasionally causing extreme pain, disease and death, often to humans.  Disease vectors, such as some breeds of mosquito also may be best off being dispensed of, if it is possible to do so.

If this makes me sound a bit human-centric, I have no apologies.   I happen to be a human and I also like my species quite a lot.  I have no problem dispensing with little nasties that cause my fellow main to suffer or die.

So to the Rocky Mountain Locust and the Small Pox virus I say only this:  Good riddance!

Extinct, believed extinct (no recent sightings) or critically near extinction and not really missed:

(more…)

Recently, a study published in the Journal Pediatrics has been getting a huge amount of press for indicating a possible relationship between organophosphate levels and ADHD (but interestingly NOT ADD.)   Organophosphates are commonly used as pesticides and trace levels are found in a minority of food in the US.  Most fruit and vegitables sold in the US do not have levels of organophosphates that are high enough to be detected by standard analytical methods, but up to 25-33% do have detectable, albeit small, amounts.   Thus many people do have small but detectable amounts of these compounds in their bodies.

Organophosphates can be quite dangerous to humans and their application may require protective measures, however they tend to break down fairly quickly and when used properly the amount that remains in the end product is small and has never been conclusively linked to any health effects.   Their relatively short time to breakdown has lead to their widespread adoption.  Organochloride insecticides, such as DDT tend to present less danger of acute toxicity to humans, but may linger in the environment longer than organophosphates.

The study raises some interesting questions, but the way it is being reported makes it sound like it has presented far more conclusive evidence than it really has.    It is already being used by “organic” agriculture groups as proof of the superiority of organic products.  It is also causing a lot of fear and confusion for parents.   Even personal injury attorneys are already all over it! The news reports indicate that higher body burdens of organophosphates are linked to ADHD , but in reality the study’s data and conclusions are far less black and white.

Thankfully, you can download the entire study in PDF format for FREE here.

Issues with the study:
(more…)

It seems that there has been yet another outbreak of foodborne illness outbreak has happened, this time it’s linked to alfalfa sprouts.   The pathogen responsible is all natural salmonella bacteria.

Via CNN:

Salmonella outbreak in 10 states prompts sprouts recall

Federal public health officials are investigating a salmonella outbreak that has infected 22 people in 10 states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Friday.

The infections are linked to the consumption of raw alfalfa sprouts, the CDC said.

California-based Caldwell Fresh Foods is recalling all alfalfa sprouts manufactured under three of its brands because they may be contaminated with salmonella, the company said Friday. Caldwell said its alfalfa sprouts have been associated with the outbreak.

There have been no deaths reported from the outbreak, but four of those infected have been hospitalized, Caldwell Fresh Foods said in a statement Friday.

CDC is collaborating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and with state public health officials to investigate the salmonella outbreak, the CDC said in a statement Friday.

One of those infected was an infant hospitalized in Oregon, an Oregon Department of Health official told CNN. The baby had been eating alfalfa sprouts, said Paul Cieslak, manager of the state health department’s communicable disease section.

CDC is collaborating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state public health officials to investigate the strain, called Salmonella Newport, the CDC said in a statement Friday.

The initial investigation traced the implicated raw alfalfa sprouts to a single sprout processor in California, the CDC said, though it did not name Caldwell Fresh Foods directly. The CDC did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

(more…)

Organic food:  It’s supposed to be a whole different way of growing food to make it a lot better for you, but really it’s just a set of restrictions which limit growers to using fertilizers and insect control methods that are deemed as somehow being “natural.”   Of course, the food is basically the same, other than the fact that organic foods tend to take more energy, water, land and effort to grow and are often slightly lower in proteins or other nutrients.

Via the Salt Lake Tribune:

Study: Songbirds prefer conventionally grown wheat to organic

Increasingly each year, humans foraging in American supermarkets select organically grown food. Not so with wild songbirds searching for sustenance in the gardens of England.

Given a choice between organically and conventionally grown wheat, they opt for the conventional stuff — which is higher in protein — 55 to 60 percent of the time, a study has found.

The findings, which were published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture on Tuesday, raise yet again the question of which is healthier: organic or conventional food.

The research team, based at the school of biology at Newcastle University in England, didn’t expect the birds to prefer conventionally grown wheat, said lead researcher Ailsa McKenzie. Earlier lab studies had reported that hens and rats preferred organically grown beetroot and wheat over conventionally grown.

But the problem with earlier preference studies, said McKenzie, is that none tested animals for longer than seven days, which meant that the animals did not have time to establish a preference.

“Birds learn,” she said. “They need to associate what they’re eating with where it is to learn a preference.”

In the Newcastle study, researchers positioned two feeders — one stocked with organic wheat and another with conventionally grown wheat — in 36 English gardens. Then over a period of six weeks in 2008, they measured how much wheat birds ate by gauging every two days how much food was consumed from each feeder.

The scientists conducted a second test in early 2009, this time studying 15 gardens over eight weeks. They also tested preferences among canaries in the laboratory.

…
All three trials found a preference for the conventionally grown food. In the 2008 trial, for example, the birds consumed 58,954 grams of wheat, 45 percent of it organic and 55 percent conventional.

The higher protein content of the conventional wheat — about 10 percent greater than the organic wheat’s — “most likely” accounted for the birds’ liking it better, the scientists wrote.

Conventionally grown crops are usually treated with fertilizers that deliver higher levels of nitrogen to plants than organic fertilizers do, in a form that can be processed more quickly. Plants use nitrogen to produce protein.

What the findings mean for humans is unclear.

“Our results suggest that the current dogma that organic food is preferred to conventional food may not always be true, which is of considerable importance for consumer perceptions of organically grown food,” the report concludes.

Advocates of organic farming beg to differ.

“For a team of scientists to extrapolate from a modest difference in what birds selected to make a statement that consumer perception should change is ludicrous,” said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, a research organization in Boulder, Colo., that promotes “the conversion of agriculture to organic methods,” according to its website.

The results are interesting, although they don’t really prove anything new. In fact, they’re pretty much what you would expect. The ratio of 45% to 55% suggests that the birds really didn’t have a huge preference one way or the other, but in general perfected the more protein-rich food.

It is interesting, however, to find that the birds preferred the slightly higher protein from conventional wheat, as it suggests that birds are capable of detecting protein levels. This says more about bird behavior and biology than organic farming, of course. One would expect that if the two samples had been closer in protein content, such as in a crop that was less dependent on nitrogen fertilizer, the ratio would likely be closer to 50/50.

The best conclusion that can be drawn from this is that birds, are generally not capable of reading and therefore are not enticed by the marketing material produced by organic farming advocates.  They may need to consider some more bird-oriented publicity programs.

Not sure if all readers will feel the same, but recently I’ve come across a few news items that really just made me feel like tearing my hair out.   They’re so dead wrong, misleading and ridiculous and yet are reported in otherwise credible news outlets as if they were meaningful.
(more…)

Via the New York Times:

Rise of the Superweeds
DYERSBURG, Tenn. — For 15 years, Eddie Anderson, a farmer, has been a strict adherent of no-till agriculture, an environmentally friendly technique that all but eliminates plowing to curb erosion and the harmful runoff of fertilizers and pesticides.

On a recent afternoon here, Mr. Anderson watched as tractors crisscrossed a rolling field — plowing and mixing herbicides into the soil to kill weeds where soybeans will soon be planted.

Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.

To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.

“We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. “We’re trying to find out what works.”

Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.

“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts.

The first resistant species to pose a serious threat to agriculture was spotted in a Delaware soybean field in 2000. Since then, the problem has spread, with 10 resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton and corn.

The superweeds could temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for some genetically modified crops. Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds.

What we have here is yet another tired attack on genetically modified crops in general because just one of them has some minor secondary issues. Genetically modified crops come with numerous engineered traits. Some are modified to absorb nutrients more efficiently, others are modified to resist fungus or attacks by insects while others are modified to better withstand drought. The particular kind of genetically modified crop that this applies to are so-called “Roundup Ready” crops. These are crops which are resistant to the herbicide known as Roundup (Glyphosate).

(more…)