Mike G wrote:This study seems to have been designed to 1) equate "safer" with a single metric which was likely to favor pigs pumped full of subtherapeutic* antibiotics and whatnot, ignoring all the other and many many ways in which such pigs are not safer for anybody, and 2) measure infection by measuring antibodies, which means that a present infection and a successfully fought-off infection will both register as a present infection-- thus portraying the weaker hogs fed drugs as more healthy than the stronger hogs who didn't need them.

See, I think this assumption is the main point of contention here. I didn't bother to read the whole study, but I did read the abstract:

There has been a growing niche-market, outdoor, antimicrobial-free (ABF) swine production system in the
last few years prompted by consumers’ demand for a more ‘‘natural’’ pork product. The impact of such
production systems on reemergence of current and historically significant swine-associated pathogens has
not been determined. The objectives of the current study were to determine and compare Salmonella,
Toxoplasma, and Trichinella seropositivity in two swine production systems: outdoor ABF and intensive
indoor production systems. These three foodborne pathogens represent those with the highest importance
for pork consumption. A total of 675 serum samples from three participating states, Wisconsin, North
Carolina, and Ohio, were investigated. We found significantly higher seroprevalence of Salmonella and
Toxoplasma from ABF herds (54% and 7%, respectively) than conventional (39% and 1%, respectively) ( p ¼
0.001). Two pigs, both from ABF herds, were found to be seropositive for Trichinella. The results from this
preliminary study suggest that all three pathogens were more commonly present in pigs that were reared
in an ABF, outdoor, niche-market type of environment than the conventional, indoor-reared herds though
there were some geographical variation in Salmonella. This warrants a robust epidemiologic study to
determine the role of various risk factors in the two production systems that may lead to persistence of
bacterial (Salmonella) pathogens and reemergence of parasites (such as Trichinella) of historical significance.

The "equate safer" part seems to have been the role of McWilliams rather than the scientist, who--from this passage anyway--seems pretty straightforward about exactly what he's investigating.

It was a quote from Kennyz that initiated this long tangent:

Even if it's accurate (which I doubt) that antibiotic-free pigs are more likely to carry certain pathogens than conventional pigs.

And so there has been a long (admittedly of some arcane interest) debate in this thread about manners and bias, but largely neglecting the larger topic of, what are the pros and cons, disease-wise, of industrial vs. free-range pork; which is to say, not the results of the study, per se, but how important they are in a larger context.

I'm somewhat puzzled about how auxen1's remarks in this thread have provoked such a strong reaction, even if it was he who started this odd debate by calling out Kennyz's relatively innocent expression of doubt. But the reflexive denouncement of what seems to me an equally innocent statement by auxen1 seems to bolster what I assume is his implicit position of a certain blinding pro-free-range orthodoxy.

Again, to re-quote the abstract:

The results from this preliminary study suggest that all three pathogens were more commonly present in pigs that were reared in an ABF, outdoor, niche-market type of environment than the conventional, indoor-reared herds though there were some geographical variation in Salmonella.

And to quote Kennyz:

The study did not conclude that antibiotic-free pigs are more likely to carry pathogens, so my speculation about accuracy had nothing to with the study.

It sounds to me like the study's conclusions were exactly that. Which has absolutely nothing to do with which I'd rather eat.

But at the risk of repeating myself, it seems like auxen1's entire point boils down to wondering why Kennyz doubts the study--which it seems to me that he does--and for that has auxen1 had mild fury rain upon him. I don't really get it.

Is anyone suggesting that these pathogens are not "more commonly present in pigs that were reared in an ABF, outdoor, niche-market type?" If not, then this argument to me seems moot.

Though there are other points of substance, apparently. At least one Atlantic commenter listed three criticisms of the science:

Joel who commented on an Atlantic blog wrote:1) the largest variance in seropositivity for these toxins was regional.
2) treating animals with antibiotics is a good way to prevent them from acquiring resistance to said microbes; this is what the study measured.
3) the differences in seropositivity were marginal. the difference in trichinella seropositivity was statistically insignificant.

I don't know enough to evaluate these issues, or some of those others raise, but I think discussion of this order are probably more useful than the conversation that makes up the bulk of this thread, and I've taken that to be auxen1's main point here. Less entertaining, perhaps, but more useful.

Aaron Deacon wrote:Again, to re-quote the abstract:

Quote:
The results from this preliminary study suggest that all three pathogens were more commonly present in pigs that were reared in an ABF, outdoor, niche-market type of environment than the conventional, indoor-reared herds though there were some geographical variation in Salmonella.


And to quote Kennyz:

Quote:
The study did not conclude that antibiotic-free pigs are more likely to carry pathogens, so my speculation about accuracy had nothing to with the study.


It sounds to me like the study's conclusions were exactly that.

Aaron,

There is a subtle but important distinction that I probably didn't explain clearly. The study did not conclude that free-range animals are more likely to have certain pathogens. It simply reported that the animals in this particular limited study had more of those pathogens. As the study authors rightly noted, if one wants to conclude whether that means free-range pigs are more likely - en masse - to carry these pathogens, one must perform a more robust, epidemiologic study.


I agree with you that the Joel questions may be more important to the world than the discussion in this thread, but I'm more entertained by by the back-and forth we have here.

As far as auxen's treatment in this thread, at least the part that comes from me stems from the snarky comments written in my direction at the beginning. But, as he rightly notes, it is with a styrofoam hammer (and an invitation to discuss this stuff further with him over beer and a medium-rare pork chop) that I gently beat him over the head.

Kenny

This study seems to have been designed to 1) equate "safer" with a single metric which was likely to favor pigs pumped full of subtherapeutic* antibiotics and whatnot, ignoring all the other and many many ways in which such pigs are not safer for anybody, and 2) measure infection by measuring antibodies, which means that a present infection and a successfully fought-off infection will both register as a present infection-- thus portraying the weaker hogs fed drugs as more healthy than the stronger hogs who didn't need them.

That's plenty of dubious for me without getting into the personal motives of the scientists.

I found this bit to be a perfect synopsis of the study, article, and ensuing discussion here.


Just like political polling, studies like this can be designed in such a way so as to guarantee the result suits the people who fund the study. This appears to be such a case.

So, whether the science is irrefutable doesn't matter. It's what the science was measuring that's in question. It's a 'forest for the trees' type of question.

The only logical response to such a study, upon hearing the results would be "......and? What's your point?"

elakin wrote:The only logical response to such a study, upon hearing the results would be "......and? What's your point?"

Which is why I don't really get the antagonism.

auxen1 wrote:But if you've missed my point, which is about the hysterical reaction to the unremarkable results of an ordinary study, funding source in this case is likely no longer relevant to the results.

I think that, upon reading about such a study, especially when it appears as part of a piece in a high profile publication, one assumes (rightly, imo) that the implicit conclusion readers are meant to draw is that industrially-raised pork is safer.

So that's where the antagonism is coming from, I think. Savvy readers have seen this bit before and there is, perhaps, a knee-jerk assumption that this is industry-sponsored propaganda and a somewhat automatic negative response as a result. Not sure if auxen is a valid target for that antagonism, however. He has been the most vocal defender of the study and its publication, so he's taking the heat.

The Op-Ed piece is entitled "Free Range Trichnosis," and the conclusion has an advertisement for the authors book, "How Locavores Are Endangering the Future of Food".

Can one really be surprised that this engendered some antagonism?

Kennyz wrote:Can one really be surprised that this engendered some antagonism?

Oh no not surprised, I just think it's misdirected, understandably to the degree (as elakin points out) that auxen1 has defended the study. But I guess that's the reason I keep chiming in here...I think the ease with which the antagonism has been transferred to (who seems to me a pretty level-headed) auxen1 belies a real difficulty in having a fair conversation about the actual merits of industrial agriculture, whatever they may be.

Kenny's right, though - the op-ed is a book ad, and contains the type of "scientifically proven" claims we find Billy Mays making. I also see auxen's point that it this doesn't necessarily refute the study - the point is that the information isn't what the op-ed writer (and at some point one would assume the Pork Board) is making it to be.

Neither tells me what to do with pork on my plate, but, regardless of this information, you can still eat a medium-rare pork chop without fear from trichinosis, just cook it so it reaches 140 after resting - and I'm already risking salmonella in so many other ways, I'm just not going to worry about it here. The whole point seems moot to me.

the point is that the information isn't what the op-ed writer (and at some point one would assume the Pork Board) is making it to be.

That's right MHays. It's clearly difficulty to seperate the emotional response from an inflammatory op ed that wields a straightforward study for its own agenda from the study itself.

2+2=4

Had the third reich used this equation to demonstrate that its students and curriculum were superior they would have been wrong. As I think McWilliams is.

And attempting to disprove the third reich's claims of superiority by first disproving that 2+2 does not equal four just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And so why dig in on 2+2 not equaling four?

auxen,

Brilliant analogy; I'll have to steal it sometime. I don't think it's a particularly accurate representation of this discussion, but it's funny and gets your point across nicely. Well done.

In the end, I think we all agree way more than we disagree here.

Kenny

auxen1 wrote:Had the third reich....

Is it...oh, yep, there it is, it's a Hitler analogy...HIYO! Godwin's Law is officially fulfilled.

fascinating. Just when I thought I couldn't learn anything more from this thread...

Khaopaat, this is a beyond fabulous link.

there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

I hereby concede defeat.