Auxen1 wrote: (and I think it's pretty clear that you are doing that).

Not hardly: I'm not going after the scientist. I'm with you in agreeing that, for the most part, scientists (like most other professionals, with certain exceptions, which I won't mention!) do the best they can. It's a schuck if you don't, and who wants to produce a schuck?

I'm going after the historian cum provocateur in this case, aided and abetted by the NYT. To pretend, and pretense it indeed is, that increased antibody count implies presence of the infectious agent, is a schuck. Most likely the inference goes the other way: a happy critter with an antibody contra A indicates success against A. Or, worst case, mutual peaceful co-existence.

Mass production of anything requires exquisite fine tuning of input, environment, and production methods. Mass production systems are fragile, and require incredible isolation from ambient conditions. They are, to quote Prigogene's masterful analysis, "Far, far, from equilibrium." Put another way, they are far, far from being in a ground state, that is, they require enormous excitation energy to keep them functioning. Prima facie, there are more fundamental states which do not require such isolation from the ambient conditions, and on those grounds alone are preferable from physical considerations. Mass production animal husbandry exhibits precisely these properties. Perhaps there are other considerations than the physical that would overrule, but I would suggest that physics is the appropriate starting point.

Geo

I would encourage everyone who has followed this thread with interest to read what the researcher said about the study in his news release and decide for themselves if it was done with "a clear bias toward conventional pork production" and if the op ed author misrepresented its results.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/porkfarms.htm

In doing a quick google this morning to track this down I found a lot of pro free range boards discrediting the op ed primarily because it failed to mention the funding for the study on which his argument was based. Those same free range boards chose to not mention the distinguished contributors to the study, or that it had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The search didn't turn up any conventional production discussions but I'm sure there are some out there.

Is full disclosure more credible? Yes. For all concerned.

Does failure to mention the funding source compromise the writer's thesis? If not but for the peer reviewed journal and a fairly robust contingent of contributors, omission of the funding source would certainly make the writer's motive highly suspect (which would have then stimulated ad hoc peer review of the study, which would have quickly "outed" any flaws in the study). Though, I really doubt the NYT would publish an op ed that features a study that's funded by the Pork Council that hasn't undergone any sort of scientific vetting. (Which reminds me to point out that the NYT reviewed and edited this Op Ed, and also deliberately chose to not use 15 or so words identifying the funding source.)

Reaction to studies like this interest me to no end. Industrial production embraces them and anti-industrial factions defame them. And vice versa as the case may be.

I don't personally see how all of this threatens the free range industry or our health if we choose to go strictly free range. While the study found a significant difference between free range and conventional, temperature has an incredible neutralizing effect. If the free range industries historically promote their product as "healthier" and "safer" then they may need to address this study, but that doesn't seem to be a monumental task. And I don't think they succeed at all by citing the funding source or calling out the Op Ed's author to do the same as their main tactic (which seems to be the case).

What I've read on the pro free range boards, though, is clearly that the study is tainted and therefor not credible because of how it was funded. If you like your pork on the pink side and free range, you're hereby encouraged to rethink this.

Mike G....

And why, pray tell, should we expect the answer that raw food is "higher risk" than McD's? (deletion)

It's only going to prove to be "higher risk" if one's definition of "higher risk" is reduced to some particular pathogen that gets killed in the cooking process..

....you answered your question. The point I was trying to make is that we know with certainty that cooked food is safer than raw because the cooking kills creepy crawlies. And those pathogens that "gets killed," can kill. Consumption behavior introduces other variables into the argument which is really besides the point.

And thus we prove that a lifetime of salad is more deadly than a lifetime of Big Macs.

Not really.

We prove that a lifetime of uncooked meat is more dangerous than a lifetime of cooked meat.....that a lifetime of uncooked vegetables is more dangerous than a lifetime of cooked vegetables....that a lifetime of unpasteurized dairy is more dangerous than a lifetime of lifetime of pasteurized dairy....that a lifetime of uncooked fish is more dangerous than a lifetime of cooked fish. Etc., etc.

But you weren't able to see past my incorporating McD's into the example which supports my argument.

That's right. Because if you're the guy who produces that conclusion full of caveats and qualifications which make it, narrowly, true in your world, I'm the guy who turns it into an ad which leaves people in the everyday world running around believing the health claims in ads and packages which are technically true, but logically nonsense.

And having something to say in my work is why they do your work.

"Food is safer when consumed after cooking than before" doesn't strike me as a conclusion full of caveats and qualifications.

Pasteurization of dairy, as one example, is a labeling claim that has a health basis and merit. And the science that resulted in legislation that forbids unpasteurized products in this country was not done to create an ad I am pretty sure.

The warnings on frozen pizza containers to not consume until cooked aren't there to encourage more sales of frozen pizzas. Although if people live past that pizza-eating experience, they are more likely to purchase another frozen pizza than if they were dead (though this would require additional research).

I have a nephew that hunts wild boar in FLA. He loves the stuff...and you can't get more free range than that!

auxin wrote:Pasteurization of dairy, as one example, is a labeling claim that has a health basis and merit

And sometimes, not:

"Donnelly, an expert on the microbiological safety of food, believes that requiring cheesemakers to use pasteurized milk is not the best way to produce safe (and tasty) cheeses; it's better to educate cheesemakers about how to ensure the safety of their raw-milk products." [From Prof. Donnelley's web page]

Cf.
Frye, C. and C.W. Donnelly. 2005. "Comprehensive survey of pasteurized fluid milk produced in the U.S. reveals a low prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes." J. Food Prot. 68:973-979.
Ngutter, C.M. and C.W. Donnelly. 2003. "Nitrite-induced injury of Listeria monocytogenes and the effect of selective versus nonselective recovery procedures on its isolation from frankfurters." J. Food Prot. 66:2252-2257.
Silk, T.M., T.T. Roth and C.W. Donnelly. 2002. "Comparison of growth kinetics for healthy and heat-injured Listeria monocytogenes in eight enrichment broths". J. Food Prot. 65:1333-1337.
Donnelly, C.W. 2002. "Detection and isolation of Listeria monocytogenes from food samples: Implications of sublethal injury." J. AOAC International 83:495-500.
Donnelly, C.W. 2001. "Factors associated with hygienic control and quality of cheeses prepared from raw milk: a review." Bull. Int. Dairy Fed. 369:16-27.

I fully expect an attack on the sources as not being good enough, biassed, influenced by money, not in good-enough journals, irrelevant, etc. But, just for once, why not try to attack the scientific data in the reports instead of attacking ad hominem? It'd make for a nice change, eh?

Geo

Geo,

One time in France when I was hosted at the home of my friends - one of whom was chef and graduate of the real cordon bleu cooking school - the after dinner cheese course was a raw brie.

Which can't be imported into the U.S.

Maybe the best tasting cheese I've ever had the pleasure to consume. (The bread upon which it was slathered wasn't bad either)

Knowing the risks, I'd gobble it down again right now.

All the best.

But what Kennyz and now Mike G suggest is that a scientist knowingly produced a bogus study or let income otherwise cloud his ethics. And that's a serious accusation.

I don't have anything to add, I just found that comment really cute. Brings to mind that famous quote from Casablanca. "shocked, shocked, I say...."

auxen, your staunchly-held naivete is very endearing.

Y'know, Auxen1, I may have had some of that very same cheese long ago, during my first sabbatical, when I nearly starved to death in the Paris 5th, except for that wonderful cheese.

Geo

elakin wrote:auxen, your staunchly-held naivete is very endearing.

Man, auxen is really getting a bad rap in this thread. I, at least, appreciate your perspective.

I work in market research, which is a considerably softer science than biology and agronomy and is more closely linked to the advertorial exploits of the likes of Mike G. As such, here and elsewhere "market research" and "focus groups" are often vilified as the rationale behind mass market pabulum or corporate stupidity. Heck, even by me...there's plenty of crappy market research out there, as is undoubtedly true for the hard sciences.

And yet, I'm also put off by the cynicism, counter to the accused naivete, that everyone's so working their angle that, what good is science anyway? There's a middle ground, and the balance you bring to these discussions, auxen1, is useful.

An update from the New York Times:

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.

Katie wrote:An update from the New York Times:

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.

Thanks for the update, Katie.

auxen1 wrote:Which reminds me to point out that the NYT reviewed and edited this Op Ed, and also deliberately chose to not use 15 or so words identifying the funding source

Guess not, auxen.

Aaron Deacon wrote:Man, auxen is really getting a bad rap in this thread

and so it continues.

auxen1 wrote:
Which reminds me to point out that the NYT reviewed and edited this Op Ed, and also deliberately chose to not use 15 or so words identifying the funding source

Guess not, auxen

Guess not what? That the NYT's "neglect" is not "deliberate."

Or that they only needed 9 words to identify the funding source and not the 15 I forecast.

Let me help.

The NYT has style and content guidelines. If omission in the original op ed violated those guidelines the correction has to be automatic.

What's key is was identification of the funding source in the piece when submitted to the NYT. If that was the case and the author can prove it, he's exonerated and the NYT has more explaining to do.

If the piece came in without identification then at least two possibilities exist. The good possibility is my argument that peer review and publication are what's important from a scientific perspective and so the author was operating from that basis. The Times made a simple mistake if they violated guidelines. And no harm, no foul.

The second is not good. The omission was deliberate and an attempt to manipulate readers. The Times made a simple mistake -- again due to the journal and peer review -- but in this case there's both harm and foul. An attempt to deliberately mislead readers. Perhaps it's not in their guidelines but they received letters, called the author and received this unfortunate impression from him. In which case they still had to take the bullet because its their paper.

Given the title of his soon to be published booked which is incendiary, I'm not going to write off any possibility.

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. And continually trying to make it relevant to the results is a little like trying to go back and make Randy Hundley tag that Met at home plate in the August '69 series at Shea Stadium. It'd be great but wishing and needing won't make it so and the game is over.

Aaron Deacon wrote:
Man, auxen is really getting a bad rap in this thread

and so it continues.

Hit with another Styrofoam hammer.

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. And continually trying to make it relevant to the results is a little like trying to go back and make Randy Hundley tag that Met at home plate in the August '69 series at Shea Stadium. It'd be great but wishing and needing won't make it so and the game is over.

Aha, then we seem to be in agreement here (as in food miles, which we now also seem to be in agreement too). The problem with the NYTimes piece was that it was all about unremarkable results. I'm no animal biologist (or even a farmer) but the premise that there are less pathogens in captive, confined, controlled animals; compared to animals with some freedom and range, well a controlled, peer reviewable study is hardly needed to demonstrate that point. The question that is of interest to eaters though is, is free range pork safe to eat. The results of this published study, peer reviewed or not, do not directly address that issue (see links above). We should not attack the scientists who used good research methods to achieve a valid result. It's not their job to be remarkable.

A little more background to understand the wiles of those valid resultians: http://civileats.com/2009/04/15/food-sa ... nsparency/

A couple Atlantic blog posts as well:

Miffed at non-disclosure: http://food.theatlantic.com/nutrition/s ... -again.php

McWilliams response to criticism: http://food.theatlantic.com/the-food-ch ... iskier.php

All very interesting links, thanks guys.

My critiques in this thread have little to do with the science, but, rather, with the journalism. Then again, it's an opinion piece, not a news article, and I suppose the main purpose of such things is to initiate dialogue and debate. In that sense, the article appears to have been a resounding success.

Regarding bias that exists when ethical scientists rely on industry funding, one need only to look at the way the study was designed in the first place. It's not that the scientists conspired to do anything unethical, but why were they studying parasite-levels in living animals to begin with? Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and much more useful to measure the contamination of processed meat products ready for the retail shelf? You could control for differences in processing method, then compare whether free-range pork chops had higher levels of salmonella, etc. than CAFO pork chops. Easier, cheaper, and more useful though that would have been, the results were not as likely to get the Pork Council what it wanted, so we end up with this relatively useless propaganda-inspired study instead. Having spent many years working in the pharmaceutical industry, I know this practice all too well.

auxen1 wrote:What's key is was identification of the funding source in the piece when submitted to the NYT. If that was the case and the author can prove it, he's exonerated and the NYT has more explaining to do.

If the piece came in without identification then at least two possibilities exist. The good possibility is my argument that peer review and publication are what's important from a scientific perspective and so the author was operating from that basis. The Times made a simple mistake if they violated guidelines. And no harm, no foul.

The second is not good. The omission was deliberate and an attempt to manipulate readers...

It would appear from the author's own response to criticism, he did precisely the thing you call "not good":

McWilliams in his Atlantic Food Channel Reponse wrote:I know full well that if I mentioned in my lede the fact that the study was funded by the Powerful Pork People, a large portion of my readership would roll their eyes, pour another cup of Fair Trade coffee, and dig the Thursday Style section out of the recycling bin. And this is the last thing I wanted...

Aha, then we seem to be in agreement here (as in food miles, which we now also seem to be in agreement too).

If you mean that the study results were in no way influenced by the funding source then, yes, we're in agreement. "What" the study focused on was absolutely influenced by the funding source. But the results are no less valid.

And study focus, I think, is a much better way to have argued the op ed. Let me help you with a better argument. "The pork council is funding meaningless studies about which we already know the answers in order to distract the American people from the horrible health and environmental reality of hog hotels which has sickened thousands of rural people and polluted with a tasteless, generic product."

And because I care about good tasting food, I would have added:

"All this study proves is that people would rather die than eat their product." (ok, maybe you don't want to say that)

Again, the suggestion that the study is somehow tainted by its funding source as the main strategy to attack the op ed is, as I've stated before, a weak strategy.

It would appear from the author's own response to criticism, he did precisely the thing you call "not good":

McWilliams in his Atlantic Food Channel Reponse wrote:
I know full well that if I mentioned in my lede the fact that the study was funded by the Powerful Pork People, a large portion of my readership would roll their eyes, pour another cup of Fair Trade coffee, and dig the Thursday Style section out of the recycling bin. And this is the last thing I wanted...

Kenny, This was a dishonest act by McWilliams. If this was his mindset -- to deliberately withhold and manipulate in the lede -- he had an obligation to his readers to make good by the end of the piece....not in an explanation in another publication. I won't read his book but let's hope it's not similarly misguided.

If you mean that the study results were in no way influenced by the funding source then, yes, we're in agreement.

How can any of us know that?

All we know is that the possibility of influence is real, because they disclosed the relationship and the report is exactly what the guys who paid for it wanted to hear. Any suggestion of how that came to be is merely conjecture.

auxen1 wrote:And study focus, I think, is a much better way to have argued the op ed. Let me help you with a better argument. "The pork council is funding meaningless studies about which we already know the answers in order to distract the American people from the horrible health and environmental reality of hog hotels which has sickened thousands of rural people and polluted with a tasteless, generic product."

Well put, but also why knowing the source of the funding matters.

PS
Mike to your point, I've certainly seen enough both professonally and otherwise to know that there is plenty of bad scientists out there. I do think in this case, arguing about the results of the study are distracting. Yes, there should be some assureance with peer reviewed journals that the results are good results regardless of who pays for the tests. In fact the sanctity of these results are just what they are counting on as this thread as shown. Still, as just mentioned, the proper science gets you no where. Or worse.

Well, that's actually not my point. I agree that focusing on the funding in the crude, "Here's your money, now, give us the result we want or ELSE!" sense is a distraction, though I didn't like being roped into agreement on something I don't believe any of us can definitively state.

Again, and as Geo has demonstrated with a better understanding of the actual scientific issues than I, the real point is that if you design the study the right way, you can prove that water flows uphill and zebras can do algebra. 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.

* New word I learned at La Quercia

How can any of us know that?

All we know is that the possibility of influence is real, because they disclosed the relationship and the report is exactly what the guys who paid for it wanted to hear. Any suggestion of how that came to be is merely conjecture.

One choice was to start with the study and determine if it was flawed or credible.

If it was flawed then it's a pretty straight route to...why did the journal publish....who at the journal reviewed....who funded, etc. And all criticism would have been deserved and legit. And the funding would have looked ugly because of the bad science it generated. And those scientists would have been relegated to working in Des Moines at the pork council the rests of their lives.

It it was credible then the challenge is more complicated. Should we react or not react. If the former, how do we react.

Assuming that we know the study is credible and we've decided that a reaction is warranted there are endless ways to go about it.

I don't like as a first option attempting to smear something that you already know to be a solid piece of work. From earlier googling, this looks to be the broad free range advocates' strategy.

A rather large reaction. And poorly reasoned reaction to a meaningless study. Not dissimilar to watching Fox News.

The study and the op ed were both opportunities to promote the benefits AND SAFETY of free range. For whatever reason that was not viewed as a meritorious approach.

Mike I respect your passion.

And you've convinced me with your last post that science has nothing to do with your argument.

One choice was to start with the study and determine if it was flawed or credible.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's what happened here. Not by bowing down to the shrine of peer review and silencing ourselves the moment it met your standards, but by looking at what it presented as facts and deciding for ourselves if they were credible or strained.

Mike I respect your passion.

And you've convinced me with your last post that science has nothing to do with your argument.

Refute the arguments, don't play the all-knowing authority card. Sorry, that's cheap and knocked you down a couple of pegs in my estimation, no matter what Aaron says.

Mike, first let me apologize if I offended you as that wasn't my intent. Your comments have been respectful and it is my wish that you receive the same from me.

I was reacting to your commitment to find something wrong with the science even though you've suggested that you are not qualified to do so. And then your choice in sourcing the science from someone you know to be a free range advocate.

Should have written that instead of the smart ass remark.

I was reacting to your commitment to find something wrong with the science even though you've suggested that you are not qualified to do so.

Jesus, can I be insulted by this one too?

I'm done. I think it's obvious that you wouldn't find anything wrong with this study if there was video of the scientists receiving pork-stained money in a brown paper bag.

All hail peer review. Scientists prove scientists never wrong!

I think it's obvious that you wouldn't find anything wrong with this study if there was video of the scientists receiving pork-stained money in a brown paper bag.

A bit of rational paranoia is good. Irrational paranoia, not so much.