Free-range pork: better vs safer

There's an interesting opinion piece on this topic in the New York Times today.

Interesting. Before anybody ditches their supply of free-range pork , I read up a bit on trichonosis: in a similar fashion to sushi, freezing pork will kill the critters. Since many people who buy heritage pork buy the whole pig and freeze it for later use, this isn't as big a worry as it might be (interestingly, in reading a couple other articles on trichonosis I discovered that while this works for pork, it doesn't apparently work for carnivorous or omnivorous wild game, which is likely to be affected)

So, even if the case cited by this article is representative, heritage pork lovers don't necessarily need to go back to the days of shoe-leather style pork.

that guy is irritating me. just cook your meat. problem solved.

Though this is a largely well-reasoned Op-Ed piece, there are a couple of glaring omissions:

- The study referenced in the piece was funded by the National Pork Board, an organization with a clear bias toward conventional pork production.

- Even if it's accurate (which I doubt) that antibiotic-free pigs are more likely to carry certain pathogens than conventional pigs, that doesn't mean that the conventional pigs are safer. The problem with preventative use of antibiotic is that it creates pathogens that are more powerful and drug-resistant. Even if fewer conventional pigs carry the pathogens, those that do carry them might be carrying super-pathogens that are more likely to cause even more severe, less treatable human illness.

The author seems to agree with organic pork advocates that today's factory farming is bad ("...we’ve lost our way and found ourselves locked in the mess of factory farming..."), yet he seems to conclude that movements away from factory farming, such as lovavorism and free-range agriculture, are bad too. I guess I agree with him that society has yet to find a perfect system for producing and distributing food.

Another thing I can't find references for: isn't salmonella more an issue of processing than of production? All I could find was a study referenced that said steam-treated carcasses had fewer pathogens in the final product.

Teatpuller, I'm not at all eager to go back to the days of shoe leather. Remember, to kill salmonella and trichonosis by cooking, you not only have to cook it, you have to cook it beyond 160 degrees.

Mhays wrote:Another thing I can't find references for: isn't salmonella more an issue of processing than of production? All I could find was a study referenced that said steam-treated carcasses had fewer pathogens in the final product.

Teatpuller, I'm not at all eager to go back to the days of shoe leather. Remember, to kill salmonella and trichonosis by cooking, you not only have to cook it, you have to cook it beyond 160 degrees.

I think 165 would only destroy a factory made pork chop (which I never eat anyway). Most of the rest of the beast can withstand that temperature.

The study referenced in the piece was funded by the National Pork Board, an organization with a clear bias toward conventional pork production.

The referenced study was in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Even if it's accurate (which I doubt) that antibiotic-free pigs are more likely to carry certain pathogens than conventional pigs, that doesn't mean that the conventional pigs are safer.

The study may very well indicate that conventional pigs are indeed safer for the consumer to eat. However, the modern form of pork production make create more risk to man (specifically those living near the hog hotels) than ingestion of pathogens.

The problem with preventative use of antibiotic is that it creates pathogens that are more powerful and drug-resistant. Even if fewer conventional pigs carry the pathogens, those that do carry them might be carrying super-pathogens that are more likely to cause even more severe, less treatable human illness.

You bring up a valid concern. However, the choice needn't be between free range and conventional with antibiotic feed. Conventional production can occur (and increasingly does) without the overuse of antibiotics. Which is potentially the safest alternative.

teatpuller wrote:

Mhays wrote:Another thing I can't find references for: isn't salmonella more an issue of processing than of production? All I could find was a study referenced that said steam-treated carcasses had fewer pathogens in the final product.

Teatpuller, I'm not at all eager to go back to the days of shoe leather. Remember, to kill salmonella and trichonosis by cooking, you not only have to cook it, you have to cook it beyond 160 degrees.

I think 165 would only destroy a factory made pork chop (which I never eat anyway). Most of the rest of the beast can withstand that temperature.

The sort of hog breeds that thrive on open pasture generally produce a great deal of fat. They can take the heat.

auxen1 wrote:The referenced study was in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Sure, but that should not lead anyone to conclude that it is free from bias.

Auxin, I'm quite surprised that your critical thinking alarm didn't get raised at the following overstatement in the article:

" In fact, free range is like piggy day care, a thoughtfully arranged system designed to meet the needs of consumers who despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness."

The statement is an unqualified universal generalization. I wrote to professor McWilliams and suggested to him that, as a professional historian, he would be aware of the dangers of overgeneralization, and that it was rather surprizing to see such a statement in an article by a professional historian. Of course, he wasn't acting as an historian in the article, so his standards didn't need to be professional, I suppose.

Now here are some free range pigs. I'm sure the claim could be made that the pictures are faked, but that would be just a bit self-protective. Be sure to look at the Photo Gallery.

Geo
edited once to add Photo Gallery ref

Geo wrote:
Now here are some free range pigs. I'm sure the claim could be made that the pictures are faked, but that would be just a bit self-protective. Be sure to look at the Photo Gallery.

Geo
edited once to add Photo Gallery ref

you wouldn't eat those, would you? I mean, they are exposed to germs and stuff.

Geo, I don't know McWilliams, a new name for me. I do think that the rationale for free range is far more complex than "consumers who despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness."

Kennyz, any time you want to send along support that the the Journal of Foodborne Pathogens and Disease is biased I'd be happy to pass it on to their esteemed board.

I'm not as certain as you that leadership of the Center For Disease Control (one of whom is on JFP&D's editorial board) would compromise its integrity and let a flawed study pass to help out the Pork Association. But, conspiracy theories do make the world go 'round.

auxen1 wrote:Kennyz, any time you want to send along support that the the Journal of Foodborne Pathogens and Disease is biased I'd be happy to pass it on to their esteemed board.

I do not remotely suggest that the Journal is biased. Quite the contrary: because it is a respected, peer-revewed journal, its editors require the study authors to disclose their biases. My point is that while the Journal appropriately made sure that the bias was disclosed, the Op-Ed author did not.

I'm not as certain as you that leadership of the Center For Disease Control (one of whom is on JFP&D's editorial board) would compromise its integrity and let a flawed study pass to help out the Pork Association. But, conspiracy theories do make the world go 'round.

Yeah, Kenny, what are you, some kind of crank? The author was funded by the Pork Council and his conclusions are exactly what the Pork Council would hope for. How can you see even the remote possibility of anything amiss in that, you nut?

Auxen1 wrote: Geo, I don't know McWilliams, a new name for me.

Uhh, McWilliams is the author of the article we're discussing... I would have hoped you'd have noticed.

teatpuller, I'm with you: Heh-heh, as Nietzsche said: "Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker". And I'm stickin' by that.


And I'm also with kennyz on peer-review in general. A recent-enough op-ed in Nature provides a nice discussion of all the problems with the system of peer-review, but, even while admitting that it's the best system we have, calls for research on ways to improve it. In other words, to say "it's in a peer-reviewed journal" isn't a discussion stopper, it's a discussion-starter.

[What was Groucho's remark? "I'd not want to belong to a club that would have me as a member". My twist would be "I'm not sure I'd want to be in a journal that I peer-reviewed for." Just joking, just joking...sort of. I reckon I've reviewed somewhere north of 150 articles, books, American/Canadian federal agency grant proposals, and I'm here to tell you peer review ain't purty.]

By the way: full disclosure, I've just ordered a Large Black Hog side from Kingston ON, to be picked up in three weeks. If it tastes as good as every report I've ever read claims, I got a consortium together and we're going to buy a few piglets and raise our own. I've done a lot of farming, but only ever raised one pig, so that doesn't hardly count. Hammond and his pig put me up to it...

Geo

The author was funded by the Pork Council and his conclusions are exactly what the Pork Council would hope for. How can you see even the remote possibility of anything amiss in that, you nut?

I really doubt that the Pork Council....or the Beef Council....or any other food marketing council is going to fund a scientific study that it knows will see the light of day without knowing in advance what the results are going to be.

In this case, it was a pretty safe bet that animals exposed to a greater number and more diverse variety of pathogens are higher risk than animals exposed to a lower number and less diverse variety of pathogens.

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.

Which I would let pass if the study hadn't passed muster with the Journal and been published. Because now you're not just indicting the study's author, you are also indicting scientists from the Center for Disease Control, prominent Universities and dozens of other well regarded institutions.

Had the study been been turned down by the Journal and published on Pork's website I doubt the Op Ed author would have sourced it. But it's met a higher standard and so I think that if you're going to throw mud you should back it up.

Uhh, McWilliams is the author of the article we're discussing... I would have hoped you'd have noticed

I did. I don't know him. It's a new name for me.

auxen1 wrote: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.

What thread are you reading? I did not remotely suggest that any scientist did anything unethical. Saying that a study has bias does not mean that it was performed unethically. Good, ethical scientists recognize that it is impossible to eliminate bias from studies. Ethical science demands that study authors acknowledge and disclose all relevant biases. The scientists referenced in this thread did that - they wrote within their study that they had been funded by the commercial pork people. The historian/ op-ed writer did not.

This is just silly.

As Kenny points out, the bias is acknowledged in the original article, but your position seems to be, acknowledgement of possible bias proves that bias is impossible.

The root of my issue is the statement, "even if it's accurate (which I doubt)."

Which was prefaced by a statement that cited the Pork industry as the funding source. This, to me, is clear and accusatory language and so I was looking for some justification as to why the study findings would be inaccurate.

Science, last time I checked, doesn't look at its funding source (or ceases to be science).

I don't eat pork. I don't give a s**t about the Pork Council. The study's conclusions, while news to the New York Times, is old hat to the animal protein industry (why it got funded in the first place). The Op Ed author sounds like he's picking a fight to promote his book.

But, science is science. And so if you're taking a shot at what looks to be solid science, defend it. Or simply say you can't.

If I've pushed this too far I apologize and no offense meant. Truly. But in my world what you've written is serious.

Ahh, Auxin, Principled Skeptik, Critical Thinking Professor, and Defender of Established Agricultural Establishments, as always. Up to your usual rhetorical ploys again, are you? Well, I can't believe you actually said this:

Auxen1 wrote:Science, last time I checked, doesn't look at its funding source (or ceases to be science).

Have you ever been in a lab whose PI's funding is just going to run out? Have you ever sat on a disciplinary panel at NSF, NIH or USDA? Have you ever gone through the funding bulletins, looking for someone you could craft a proposal for? If you have, then your statement above is nothing but an empty piety. If you haven't then your statement above is pure ignorance. Which will it be?

Of course you could say—as you rhetorically do with "or ceases to be science"—that all the situations I allude to have ceased to be science. Which means a large proportion of scientists cease to be doing science. Which is absurd. So, play with definitions if you wish, but it will lead, in this case, to absurdity.

Geo

But is it Kosher for Passover

A little perspective on this perspective piece here (go to linked Johns Hopkins for more).

Tnx for that VI. The JHU gloss added an issue that I think is important: is it the case that the 'outdoor' pigs had a healthier, more robust immune system than the 'indoor' pigs? And, just insofar as immune system health is an indicator of overall systemic health, perhaps the outdoor pigs were healthier than the indoor pigs?
Although the inference is plausible, it awaits further corroboration, as does most science.

Moreover, I think an equally important problem is raised: what's the Times doing publishing shoddy stuff like this?? Perhaps, as someone suggested, they were playing "Hey, why don't you two fight, I'll hold your coats!" , which certainly has been the outcome!

Geo

I think they were giving equal time after Nicholas Kristof's piece the other day-- which was way too inflammatory for the available evidence, it seems to me, and demonstrated the difference between science and journalistic sensation all too well. It's not that I don't think there may be something to it, ultimately, but Kristof went very quickly from possibility to indignation.

Geo, I liked your post.

And yes, I've worked in a research organization where funding was drastically cut, causing some of our expat scientists to be tossed out of the good ol USA in 30 days (after working here their entire professional careers).

And I can't think of one scientist facing that prospect ever suggesting that work should be fudged, even when they were looking at huge personal loss (not that fudging their work would have changed one thing).

I can't speak to the quality of the study or to the integrity of the scientist. The study's findings - as reported in the NYT piece - are unremarkable and I would argue expected. And probably don't indicate a health threat to you or me (whereas hog hotels do represent a health threat to our rural cousins). But it's interesting that individuals who embrace the concept of free range as superior feel a need to attack the scientist (and I think it's pretty clear that you are doing that).

I think that going after the science in this case is going down a worm hole. The error is accepting McWilliams argument on his terms. In doing so you've already lost (if the study was well executed).

The science can be right AND free range can be superior. But instead of making that argument, you're taking the bait from a guy looking to sell books about locavorism being really bad.

If the subject were about the raw foods movement and science found that a raw food diet was much higher risk than McDonald's and was funded by the National Restaurant Association it would be similar. The results would be expected and unremarkable. Of course the National Restaurant Association knew what those results were going to be (as would anyone with high school science under their belt) before the work was done.

The raw foods movement would be making a mistake, I think, in attacking the science of that study.

I am glad to see the post has sparked discussion. I feel neutral on the subject, inasmuch as I'm not much of a pork fan anyway -- Oh wait, bacon lovers, I am SO with you! It's the pork chop I grew up with, the one you want to grab with both hands so you can pull it away from your teeth, that I have no particular affection for. I cook it up when Sweet Baboo brings it home, and I've had some luck with (a) the Cooks Illustrated cold-pan method and (b) the recently discussed low-slow oven method, but still. No great affection. So I am a blank slate as far as opinion goes on whether the pros of heritage pork outweigh the potential cons.

Keep talking. I'm curious.

The pros of heritage pork are that it doesn't cook into shoe leather like that. (I suppose it does eventually, but as m'th'su said, there's a lot more fat to protect it along the way. Plus, don't cook pork chops or loins, and you won't have that problem. There's better parts to cook.)

I suppose it could also be an overgeneralization to lump all heritage pork as more risky. Can't we identify some producers who take more care than others?

If the subject were about the raw foods movement and science found that a raw food diet was much higher risk than McDonald's and was funded by the National Restaurant Association it would be similar. The results would be expected and unremarkable. Of course the National Restaurant Association knew what those results were going to be (as would anyone with high school science under their belt) before the work was done.

The raw foods movement would be making a mistake, I think, in attacking the science of that study.

And why, pray tell, should we expect the answer that raw food is "higher risk" than McD's? Seems to me that that's only possible if you assume the real kind of fudging that goes on in these kinds of studies all the time-- not the kind that involves falsification (though God knows that's hardly unknown) but the kind that defines the question to produce the answer wanted.

I have no patience with raw foodies, we invented fire a million years ago, let's use it, but obviously it's a lower risk diet for all sorts of health issues than three greaseburgers a day. 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 may see that as pure and honest science, but I don't.

auxen1 wrote:The root of my issue is the statement, "even if it's accurate (which I doubt)."

Which was prefaced by a statement that cited the Pork industry as the funding source. This, to me, is clear and accusatory language and so I was looking for some justification as to why the study findings would be inaccurate.

I'm going to guess that you have not actually read the study. I did not suggest that its findings were inaccurate; I suggested, rather, that the Op-Ed author's hypothesis would likely turn out to be inaccurate ("false" would have been a better word for me to use). I wrote, "Even if it's accurate (which I doubt) that antibiotic-free pigs are more likely to carry certain pathogens than conventional pigs...". 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. The study merely cited what I assume to be meticulously-collected data from a decent-sized sample, and concluded that the data suggest a need for further research. I have absolutely no quarrel with that. I have quarrels with an Op-Ed author who fails disclose important biases from that study, then uses self-serving quotes to make a case that's right in line with a book he's trying to sell.