OK, but also consider - when and where is the last time you even had the opportunity to have raw oysters from Chesapeake Bay or further south on the Atlantic Coast? Gulf Coast? Does cooking kill the bad stuff?

leek wrote:OK, but also consider - when and where is the last time you even had the opportunity to have raw oysters from Chesapeake Bay or further south on the Atlantic Coast? Gulf Coast? Does cooking kill the bad stuff?

I have friends who trek down to Appalachicola, FL every November (note that the month ends in "r") for oysters and they (and everyone else who's had them) swear by these Gulf Coast oysters as being the best.

Leek's comment highlights the subtle north/west big city bias we were joking about (and I don't mean personal bias; this is a bias that is tied to what suppliers supply to "fancy" restaurants in Chicago and elsewhere). All the oysters you'll have at Acme, Felix and hundreds (thousands?) of places in NOLA and environs are from the gulf or adjacent brackish waters. Same for much of what you'll get at the beach near my hometown of Tampa. Ditto the Carolinas, where the warm waters will supply the day's catch for oyster roasts (which tend to have raw oysters available,too). Same for Virginia and Baltimore, I'd assume. Actually, I'd say most of the places in the US with a strong local oyster culture are on the "warm" coasts. The great exception is New England. The terrific farmed bivalves of the NW are a fairly new phenomenon.

So, this is a cultural issue as well as a health/regulatory one. And, not to open a can of worms, but I'd bet there's also a socio-economic bent here too. Those people who are sick but don't know it and/or don't care down in LA, the ones the feds are hoping to save from themselves? I'd bet my house the stats show those are the same people the government did such a great job with during the Katrina disaster.

Exactly. You won't see them here.

By in large,* yes, exactly, and too bad. But I don't follow your logic. That's a choice the "market" made. Distributors and possibly restaurant owners have chosen not to serve them, in Chicago. Just as they have collectively decided not to serve belons, the best oysters by many oyster lovers' standards. Doesn't support the government action and certainly doesn't address the impact this will have on long-standing economies and cultures in worthy regions where several on this board happen either to live or visit frequently.



*True for "fancy" restaurants. You actually see Chesapeake's in Chicago quite a bit, mostly in neighborhood places and groceries. Cy's, of which I'm not a huge fan, has them all the time, cheap. Whole Foods, too. Gulfs, almost never.

Since you bring a little focus to the cultural aspect, Jeff, if I may pose one more question to riddlemay...

Let me propose an analogy... I'm curious to see if it changes your mind at all.

Let's say it's discovered that something inherent in the production process of our local hot dogs results in some form of viral contamination that kills a Chicagoan every year or two.* As a result, the CDC moves to ban the production of our all-beef dogs, putting Vienna and other producers out of business, and doing a significant amount of collateral damage to jobs and livelihoods in other local support industries, as well as restaurants whose bottom lines rely heavily on Chicagoans' love for their hot dogs. Chicago hot dog stands would henceforth have to import pork dogs from other states to make our new "Chicago-style" hot dogs, and a culinary cultural institution is lost forever.

Do you support the ban?

Or substitute regions of France and certain raw milk cheeses, parts of Italy and guanciale, Japan and fugu... I'm just wondering if it's easier to support such a ban when it isn't your cultural institution and local industry that's being threatened.

* - Chicago's just one city, whereas warm water oysters and the poisonings in question are the result of local fare over a very broad area. Absent actual statistics about how many people consume what, I'm just kind of throwing this out there as a total guess at a similar rate. Adjust as you deem appropriate.

* - Simply importing similarly produced dogs would be easy, since they transport easily without spoilage or a loss of quality. So to try to mimic -- for the purposes of analogy -- the difference in character between local warm water oysters and imported cold water oysters, I'm throwing out pork hot dogs as the "replacement".

riddlemay wrote:

Mike G wrote:So you made a deadly choice under the influence of alcohol?

Clearly more laws are needed to protect you.

Is it New York that has signs in bars prohibiting the serving of liquor to pregnant women? Or California? Either way (unless you disagree with that, as well), not all laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol are bad. If we're talking general principals.

BTW, I don't think this is at all analogous. In those cases, there's nothing at all preventing a woman from drinking herself into oblivion. The issue -- which there's no need to discuss here -- that precipitates the law has nothing to do with the mother's health.

Dmnkly wrote: Let me propose an analogy... I'm curious to see if it changes your mind at all.

Let's say it's discovered that something inherent in the production process of our local hot dogs results in some form of viral contamination that kills a Chicagoan every year or two.*

Though, I think you'd need to add the following information to your analogy for it to be an accurate comparison:

First, those at risk for being killed by a hotdog are a specific population, let's say for purposes of argument, people with epilepsy*, and that the viral contamination is rare even so. Chicago responds to this threat by requiring that all purveyors of hotdogs post warnings stating "Persons who suffer from epilepsy should not consume hot dogs due to the possible risk of contamination from Virus K, as it could be harmful or fatal"

* I chose epilepsy for this analogy only because it's fairly rare and fairly well-known; I know nearly nothing about it.

In the case of rare (for lack of a better word) contaminants, I would look for government intervention in two cases: one, that the contamination would be fatal or nearly so to anyone, regardless of their health or behavior (though an outright ban would need to be well-supported by evidence of real danger) or two, that there be a clear and easily understood warning attached, so that whoever eats whatever it is can choose for themselves - and that sub-groups be identified in that warning if there is little risk to the general public (e.g. raw sushi warning labels, or the current labels on raw oysters.)

Dmnkly wrote:Since you bring a little focus to the cultural aspect, Jeff, if I may pose one more question to riddlemay...

Let me propose an analogy... I'm curious to see if it changes your mind at all.

Let's say it's discovered that something inherent in the production process of our local hot dogs results in some form of viral contamination that kills a Chicagoan every year or two.* As a result, the CDC moves to ban the production of our all-beef dogs, putting Vienna and other producers out of business, and doing a significant amount of collateral damage to jobs and livelihoods in other local support industries, as well as restaurants whose bottom lines rely heavily on Chicagoans' love for their hot dogs. Chicago hot dog stands would henceforth have to import pork dogs from other states to make our new "Chicago-style" hot dogs, and a culinary cultural institution is lost forever.

Do you support the ban?

First, I'm region-neutral on this, and hence fair. I wouldn't exempt Chicago from the principle just because I live here. I think it would extemely parochial to do so, and I'm sure you agree.

Second, my response would depend on the number of Chicagoans killed just by eating the hot dogs. I know you're trying to find a "pro-rated" number that corresponds to the oyster deathrate, and this leads you to "a Chicagoan every year or two," but that's an arbitrary figure. I wouldn't ban the hot-dogs-of-death if they caused one fatality every other year. But I might, in fact, ban them if they were directly responsible for killing 100 Chicagoans a year. There are those of you who would still say, "caveat emptor, let people take their chances, this is America." I wouldn't. 100 Chicagoans a year killed directly because they ate one bad hot dog would cause me to shut down hot dog production until I could identify the toxin responsible and make sure hot dogs were once again free of it. I would very much like the next victim of murder-by-dog not to be my wife, any other family member, or friend of mine. Call me nanny.

Third, to Michele's point, in which she posits that only people with "pre-existing conditions" are susceptible, so why should the rest of us suffer, I'd say that it's not clear that this is the case with warm water gulf oysters. The article says there is suspicion that some of those who died brought an immune deficiency to the party, but it also says that some of the deceased may have been people who had no such weakness. They didn't do anything wrong. They ate what they had a every right to expect was a meal, not a murder weapon.

riddlemay wrote:They ate what they had a every right to expect was a meal, not a murder weapon.

You kill* me, should we ban Riddlemay?

*Not literally

i dont like the govt. telling me what I can/cannot eat. I really dont trust their judgement given their overall trackrecord.

G Wiv wrote:You kill* me, should we ban Riddlemay?

*Not literally

Seriously, Gary, why would you say that?

Edited to add the sad emoticon, which does reflect my disappointment, sadness, and, yes, I'm not ashamed to say it, hurt. I thought we were having a rational and civil discussion here, and had felt myself a welcome participant in it, as I hope I am on all threads on LTHForum. I hope our moderator will reconsider his immoderate response.

I have to support the ban. Just as I support the use of hydrogen bombs to kill mosquitoes. Both can be remarkably effective.

riddlemay wrote:Seriously, Gary, why would you say that?

A joke, as in when someone says something particularly funny and the response is "you kill me"

You are, of course, welcome in any and all LTHForum discussions, I simply found your equating oysters to a murder weapon hilariously funny.

Okay, sorry I was sensitive. (And at the same time, happy to have amused.)

riddlemay wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Since you bring a little focus to the cultural aspect, Jeff, if I may pose one more question to riddlemay...

Let me propose an analogy... I'm curious to see if it changes your mind at all.

Let's say it's discovered that something inherent in the production process of our local hot dogs results in some form of viral contamination that kills a Chicagoan every year or two.* As a result, the CDC moves to ban the production of our all-beef dogs, putting Vienna and other producers out of business, and doing a significant amount of collateral damage to jobs and livelihoods in other local support industries, as well as restaurants whose bottom lines rely heavily on Chicagoans' love for their hot dogs. Chicago hot dog stands would henceforth have to import pork dogs from other states to make our new "Chicago-style" hot dogs, and a culinary cultural institution is lost forever.

Do you support the ban?

First, I'm region-neutral on this, and hence fair. I wouldn't exempt Chicago from the principle just because I live here. I think it would extemely parochial to do so, and I'm sure you agree.

Oh, absolutely, I was just wondering if you were considering the cultural aspect involved. The argument for a ban would be stronger, I think, if it was simply a matter of shipping the same product in from another area.

riddlemay wrote:Second, my response would depend on the number of Chicagoans killed just by eating the hot dogs. I know you're trying to find a "pro-rated" number that corresponds to the oyster deathrate, and this leads you to "a Chicagoan every year or two," but that's an arbitrary figure. I wouldn't ban the hot-dogs-of-death if they caused one fatality every other year. But I might, in fact, ban them if they were directly responsible for killing 100 Chicagoans a year. There are those of you who would still say, "caveat emptor, let people take their chances, this is America." I wouldn't. 100 Chicagoans a year killed directly because they ate one bad hot dog would cause me to shut down hot dog production until I could identify the toxin responsible and make sure hot dogs were once again free of it. I would very much like the next victim of murder-by-dog not to be my wife, any other family member, or friend of mine. Call me nanny.

You're absolutely right that the number I chose was completely arbitrary, and I attempted to say as much in the footnote. And unless I'm mistaken, what you suggest here isn't analogous. This isn't a matter of temporarily shutting down production until we can clean out the baddies. This is simply an inherent risk. There is no "until I could identify the toxin responsible", so it's simply a permanent ban.

And since you mention "100 Chicagoans", that's specifically why I talk about other riskier practices. If your argument is that there's a point at which the fatality rate becomes too high to be acceptable, then the point is that warm water oysters are way down there on the scale of risky leisure activities. They're being arbitrarily singled out while scads of other activities that are no more necessary and no less risky go unchecked. Which is why I asked... skydiving is far riskier, both in terms of number and rate. Should it also be banned?

Third, to Michele's point, in which she posits that only people with "pre-existing conditions" are susceptible, so why should the rest of us suffer, I'd say that it's not clear that this is the case with warm water gulf oysters. The article says there is suspicion that some of those who died brought an immune deficiency to the party, but it also says that some of the deceased may have been people who had no such weakness. They didn't do anything wrong. They ate what they had a every right to expect was a meal, not a murder weapon.

But this is why I say... if this is the case, start a public awareness campaign. If you absolutely have to, mandate that every server inform somebody who is ordering warm water oysters that 15 people die every year from the consumption therof (I think that's also overdoing it, but it beats a ban). If the problem is a lack of awareness so that people can make an informed choice, address the problem.

Dmnkly wrote:If your argument is that there's a point at which the fatality rate becomes too high to be acceptable, then the point is that warm water oysters are way down there on the scale of risky leisure activities. They're being arbitrarily singled out while scads of other activities that are no more necessary and no less risky go unchecked. Which is why I asked... skydiving is far riskier, both in terms of number and rate. Should it also be banned?

Well, I think the only answer I can give you is that skydiving doesn't fall within the purview of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA's charge is to make sure the nation's food and drug supply is safe. When it determines that something in the food supply isn't safe, and it fails to act, it's a dereliction of duty.

The only argument then is whether 15 deaths a year from a food is evidence that it is unsafe. For me, it is evidence of that.

riddlemay wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:If your argument is that there's a point at which the fatality rate becomes too high to be acceptable, then the point is that warm water oysters are way down there on the scale of risky leisure activities. They're being arbitrarily singled out while scads of other activities that are no more necessary and no less risky go unchecked. Which is why I asked... skydiving is far riskier, both in terms of number and rate. Should it also be banned?

Well, I think the only answer I can give you is that skydiving doesn't fall within the purview of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA's charge is to make sure the nation's food and drug supply is safe. When it determines that something in the food supply isn't safe, and it fails to act, it's a dereliction of duty.

The only argument then is whether 15 deaths a year from a food is evidence that it is unsafe. For me, it is evidence of that.

Heh... well, when I asked if skydiving should also be banned, I wasn't asking the FDA, I was asking you... so I think that's dodging the question

But we're probably past the point of beating this into the ground anyway. Thanks for being a good sport.

Of course you're right, Dom - but I just realized that an amusing analogy has been wending its way up and down my FB page, so I thought I would share: School Principal Bans "Meep."

I fully understand the implications of keeping order in a high school and how serious it can be, but this would be a good exemplar of a completely useless application of a ban - analagous even further becaise pretty much anybody can go collect and eat oysters right on the beach, so a ban on sales won't necessarily reduce deaths - much in the same way that banning a silly word isn't necessarily going to get your students to straighten up and fly right.

Addressing the underlying issues, OTOH, might actually accomplish something.

Mhays wrote:Addressing the underlying issues, OTOH, might actually accomplish something.

Would one of those underlying issues, Michele, be the Vibrio vulnificus that's in the oysters? And could addressing it entail using one or another of the technologies that have been proven to reduce it without harming the flavor or texture of the oysters? (Jeff mentioned one of these technologies upthread.) The LA Times said this in its article on Saturday: "FDA officials...plan to speak with other federal agencies about establishing programs to help small oyster businesses afford the treatments."

riddlemay wrote:And could addressing it entail using one or another of the technologies that have been proven to reduce it without harming the flavor or texture of the oysters?

One of those technologies was freezing.

If the FDA says it doesn't affect flavor and texture and restaurants say it does, I know who I believe.

But again, then, let's talk about implementing those rather than a ban. I'm all for nuclear oysters.

To clarify, I was referring to the radiation treatment, which has been subject to taste testing as documented in the linked report. Again, regardless of taste, people should be able to choose oysters that have not been zapped. Further, and importantly to me, none of the treatments is consistent with an oyster boat pulling up to the dock followed by the immediate shucking of bivalves. Truly fresh, that-day oysters will become a thing of the past (at least during the warmer months).

The New York Times reported on Friday, November 13: Food Agency Delays Ban on Oysters After Outcry

JeffB wrote:...the radiation treatment...has been subject to taste testing as documented in the linked report. Again, regardless of taste, people should be able to choose oysters that have not been zapped. Further, and importantly to me, none of the treatments is consistent with an oyster boat pulling up to the dock followed by the immediate shucking of bivalves. Truly fresh, that-day oysters will become a thing of the past (at least during the warmer months).

In the spirit of reasonable compromise, I'd ask: Would it be acceptable to allow truly-fresh, that-day, unprocessed oysters to be consumed for eight months of the year, and to require radiation or some other processing for just those four remaining "non-R" months of the year, in return for saving 15 lives?

Um... because we totally trust the government on anything involving radiation?

Mike G wrote:Um... because we totally trust the government on anything involving radiation?

Point taken, but here we have a situation in which it's a known that the non-irradiated Gulf oysters in the summer months are killing people.

For irradiation, substitute one of the other forms of processing that you might feel safer with, granted that some of them might impair flavor or texture to some degree more than irradiation is claimed to. The question is, can we tolerate this for just one-third of the year, in return for saving 15 lives, knowing that we can have our fresh-off-the-boat Gulf oysters the other two-thirds of the year? 15 lives aren't "a lot," but are they enough for us to make a small compromise in the "I want what I want when I want it" department? I think they ought to be.

Riddlemay,

Irrelevant to me personally because, as I mentioned, I don't like the taste of Gulf oysters in the warmer months. That's grouper time. But to answer the question seriously, I don't think the risk numbers justify the government intervention in this example. When the feds jump in to fix a problem that pales in comparison to scads of more accute health and welfare issues left unaddressed, I look over my shoulder and feel for my wallet.

I'm guessing that the FDA hasn't communicated (or communicated well) some of its findings. They've been tracking this for years, perhaps they prescribed and funded an info campaign that when used with other food issues created the desired outcome (public health) and reasonably expected that 15 deaths number to go south of 10. Perhaps the fact that they resourced against it and the number didn't move is ominous and indicates that "15" can turn into...."45." Maybe real consumption is declining which would indicate that risk is increasing. Could be a bunch things.

I think it's unfortunate that they caved to political pressure. Once they had determined an unacceptable risk they should have told industry and congressmen to go f***k themselves. Such equivocations erode confidence in our regulatory system.

It's fine for people to believe they have a choice to consume an unsafe product. But that doesn't mean that regulators should facilitate such a choice. And the cost and logistical barriers to create parallel oyster distribution systems isn't going to fly at the end of the day. Many examples of people consuming outlawed product...eat at your own risk in every sense of the word.

I don't find the non food examples like skydiving (which I'm sure is regulated in some fashion) analogous to this issue. Peanut allergies might be a bit closer...but people who have such a life threatening allergy are incredibly careful which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Maybe mushroom harvesting. It's fairly seasonal, small numbers of people die. And regulators prevent poisonous mushrooms from being sold in grocery stores. If people want to eat poisonous mushrooms, I believe, that is their choice and they should go into the woods and consume at their own risk.

Is the recommendation to irradiate the oysters? If so, this is a completely safe process. But I'm fairly certain that irradiation has been shown to negatively affect the taste of some food products -- leafy greens come to mind. I'd be curious to learn if oysters are irradiated in the shell and if the treatment kills them.

leek wrote:OK, but also consider - when and where is the last time you even had the opportunity to have raw oysters from Chesapeake Bay or further south on the Atlantic Coast? Gulf Coast? Does cooking kill the bad stuff?

Every summer - usually July/August. I hook up with my family at St George Island, a stone's throw from Apalachicola. We eat *local* oysters durn'd near every day (usually lunch AND dinner) and frequently charter a boat and end the day watching the sunset while somebody's over the side pulling up and shucking oysters and setting them on the gunwales for us to slurp with our beer/champagne.

It is truly regrettable that these people died. However, and this seems to be lost in the more mainstream media stories, these were people that shouldn't have been eating raw shellfish at all, regardless of the time of the year. It's important that the information about the risks be made known to the consumers - and then let them decide. I can't recall having been to an oyster purveyor that doesn't have this information clearly displayed.

auxen1 wrote:I think it's unfortunate that they caved to political pressure. Once they had determined an unacceptable risk they should have told industry and congressmen to go f***k themselves.

At what point does the risk become "unacceptable" and what do you think dictates that? Do you think political or economic motivations dictate when, all the sudden, some risk becomes "unacceptable?"

auxen1 wrote: Such equivocations erode confidence in our regulatory system.

It's not as if the FDA isn't already a known corrupt/corruptible regulatory arm. I don't think an equivocation on a ban on something that is a known risky food that arguably kills 15 people per year is going to erode confidence in our regulatory system, to the extent there is any (confidence, that is). If anything, the proposed ban at this point in time might have done more to do that.

auxen1 wrote:But that doesn't mean that regulators should facilitate such a choice.

I don't see how the FDA's decision to decline to regulate "facilitates" a personal choice to eat oysters.