I rarely do this sort of thing, but I am irritated. Thanks to Ms. Baying Hound, who tweeted about this New York Times Op Ed piece. Go read it, now.
Finished? What did you learn?
Did anything hit you strangely?
I'll tell you a few things which hit me strangely.
I get worried when I read articles like this, because I'm afraid the sensational aspect of the article might cause some people take everything at face value, and not put it through a critical thinking cap.
The first thing I want to know is, who pays this person?
The author
James E McWilliams, who has a book coming out soon called "Just Food: How Locavores are Endangering the Future of Food and How We Can Really Eat Responsibly," begins the article by taking the stance that some people think free range pork is better than it's factory-farmed, confined counterpart.
He goes on to site some statistics which are sure to throw non-critical minds into a frenzy: Free-range pork is more likely to contain Salmonella, toxoplasmosa, and *gasp* trichina. First of all, having worked in restaurants for an eternity, I can assure the writer that most people think trich still exist in large numbers, and insist on having their pork cooked all the way through.
According to the article, 2 in 600 free range pigs tested positive for trichina, vs. none in confined pigs. Oh no! Fear and fright! But let's investigate those statistics for a second. If my math is correct, this is something like a 1/3 of 1% chance that a pig will contain trichina. Consider that trich is killed by cooking to an adequate internal temperature and by long-term freezing, and that most people infected with trich get over it without ever knowing they've had it, and the chances of dying from these free range pig is somewhere around getting struck by lightening on your way to cash in your winning megamillions ticket.
Let's look at some other statistics: you have a 1 in 83 chance of dying in a car crash in your lifetime; a 1 in 625 chance of being hit by a car; 1 in 210 chance of being murdered; dying in a fire or by drowning, 1 in 1100 (
source).
So. what are you doing to protect yourself from dying by any of these means? Well, beyond the reasonable (wearing a seatbelt, looking both ways before crossing the street, trying not to know anyone capable of murdering you, etc), there really isn't much you can do. We have to assume most of the people who died in the manners above took reasonable steps to prevent these sorts of things from happening.
The article goes on to take a slightly smug tone, making the snobs who eat free-range pork seem deranged - he goes right to an example of people in Texas hunting wild boar to castrate it and set it free, so that it will grow fat and be able to be captured later for tasty eating. Of course, this sounds horrifying at the beginning, but most male animals produced for eating will be castrated, regardless of their state of confinement.
There are some illogical leaps and conveniently misquoted sites in the article: consider that McWilliams sites an unnamed purveyor who says "the health benefits [of free range meat] are indisputable." He doesn't say which health benefits this is related to, but I have personally seen these claims made particularly for pastured meat and eggs, because there is scientific research to say that these items are frequently higher in omega fatty acids. (here's a good site which sites numerous academic research on this - including some done at Ohio State)
This quote is particularly stupid: "Even if the texture conferred on pork by this choice does lead to improved tenderloin, the enhanced taste must be weighed against the increased health risks. If we have learned anything from our sustained critique of industrial agriculture, it is that eating well should not require making such calculations." Why? because we simply couldn't be calculating the risks of getting food poisoning at every minute, because they would be staggering.
We are constantly "at risk" when eating. You can become sick from improper handling - from the person who picked produce to the person who touched it in the grocery store or cooked it for you in a restaurant. You can become sick from pesticides used on vegetation, or contaminated water used to irrigate the vegetation. Your food could be contaminated by fecal matter, pretty much no matter where it comes from (
source).
We are constantly at risk no matter what we do - the article points out that free range pigs have a higher rate of toxoplasmosis. That might sound scary, but if you have cats inside your home, you are constantly being exposed to toxoplasmosis (which is why pregnant women should never empty cat litter); in fact, most people who become infected with toxoplasmosis don't even know they have it.
And a cautious person, who didn't want to make calculations of their risks would be silly to ever travel to a foreign country, or take a cruise, or eat cured meat, or cheese, or drink milk, or eat oysters, or sushi, or venison, or anything hunted, ducks, rabbits, chickens, turkeys - and let's certainly no stop at animal products, because you are very likely to get food poisoning from vegetation as well. E Coli is frequently transmitted through juice and produce. You can get botulism from honey! Botulism can be a biological weapon! Lots of creep crawlies are transmitted through drinking water!
Even though an estimated 5000 people worldwide die each year from food poisoning, "The CDC estimates unknown or undiscovered agents cause 81% of all food-borne illnesses and related hospitalizations. Many cases of food poisoning are not reported because people suffer mild symptoms and recover quickly. Also, doctors do not test for a cause in every suspected case because it does not change the treatment or the outcome. " (
source)
Of course, there are indeed people who should be cautious about what they eat: those with HIV, those undergoing chemotherapy, the elderly, and babies. But these people, and those caring for them, should be careful no matter what they come into contact with - for this reason most people don't feed honey to babies under 1 year old, pregnant women usually are sure that their meat is thoroughly cooked, etc.
I read this article for the first time the other day and assumed someone in the factory-farming industry had to be somewhere behind this nonsense, and it was no surprise when I logged onto the NYT website today to find the following mea culpa at the end of the article: Editors' Note: April 14, 2009 An Op-Ed article last Friday, about pork, neglected to disclose the source of the financing for a study finding that free-range pigs were more likely than confined pigs to test positive for exposure to certain pathogens. The study was financed by the National Pork Board."
Thrown in at the end of the article, as if by second thought, is the suggestion that we avoid eating pork altogether. This is, of course, a ridiculous suggestion for people like me, but to be honest I would have rather seen the article start with that stance, rather than taking on free-range, small time farmers and suggesting that the alternative of caged animals is superior because it results in animals with fewer pathogens (perhaps because they are pumped so full of antibiotics? and therefore creating new, super-resistant pathogens?). The author posits abstaining from pork as the only "ethical" choice, which is curious, because ethics are never mentioned prior to this, and the picture painted earlier, although in a scoffing tone, of a happy pig frolicking and rooting in the earth, surely strikes this waitress as an ethical choice, as well.
So what does this mean? I can only speak for myself: I love pork. I love wild boar. I know that my taste buds far prefer delicious pork products - especially from farmers who are raising their pigs free-range and are working to breeding the fat back into them. I especially love to purchase these products directly from the farmer. The last thing we need is people calling Locavores irresponsible and defending the factory farming of animals, which is one of the most horrific things in our country. That's what lobbyists are for.
I wouldn't tell you what to do, but would only encourage you to think critically when reading this sort of fear-mongering nonsense. And, just to get a balanced perspective, you might want to read
this expose on Smithfield pork farming, from the December 2006 edition of Rolling Stone, by Jeff Tietz.
I'd love to hear a farmer's take on this.
