If it's not bad enough that we are having to deal with little boy Bush as t=
he President that couldn't, now we've also got a second round of the Avery =
family to contend with. Many of you are familiar with Dennis Avery, of the =
right-wing think tank Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues. His=
son, Alex Avery, is part of CFGI and is quoted in the press release below.=
It's the last line of the article that kills me.
**Dennis Avery wrote the book called Saving the World with Plastics and Pes=
ticides, to give you some feel for this guy.
**The Hudson Institute is funded, in part, by Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Arche=
rs Daniel Midland, Ciba-Geigy,,,,,,basically all the big chemical companies=
.
Just passing on the info on a study that we need to be aware of......
Steve Bridges
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Quote taken from a speech by Dennis Avery: (
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/=
ukshowlib.phtml?uid=6814)
"Some tout organic farming as the answer, yet scientific data show that if =
organic farming practices were employed on a global basis, the consequences=
would be an environmental catastrophe," claims Avery. "Additionally, organ=
ic practices even on a limited scale are challenged by groups like the Scot=
tish Crop Research Institute as being ecologically unsound."
Links to information about the Hudson Institute and CGFI:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Hudson_Institute - Info on t=
he makeup of the Hudson Institute
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Global_Food_Issue=
s - CGFI, A project of the Hudson Institute
http://www.earthfarmfriendly.com/about.htm - A label that CGFI is trying to=
establish for conventional farmers called "Earth Friendly, Farm Friendly" =
(gag!)
http://www.cgfi.org/ - Center for Global Food Issues main website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Organic Food Has 'Significantly Higher' Contamination, Study Finds
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 14, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - A new study on food safety reveals that organic produce may=
contain a significantly higher risk of fecal contamination than convention=
ally grown produce.
A recent comparative analysis <
http://www.ingenta.com/isis/searching/Expand=
TOC/ingenta;jsessionid=4k177waqmd6tg.circus?issue=pubinfobike://iafp/jf=
p/2004/00000067/00000005&index=6> of organic produce versus conventi=
onal produce from the University of Minnesota shows that the organically gr=
own produce had 9.7 percent positive samples for the presence of generic E.=
coli bacteria versus only 1.6 percent for conventional produce on farms in=
Minnesota.
The study, which was published in May in the Journal of Food Protection, co=
ncluded, "the observation that the prevalence of E. coli was significantly =
higher in organic produce supports the idea that organic produce is more su=
sceptible to fecal contamination."
In addition, the study found the food-borne disease pathogen salmonella onl=
y on the organic produce samples. There was no evidence found of the deadly=
strain of bacteria, E. coli O157:H7, in either type of produce tested. The=
study looked at fruits and vegetables at the "preharvest" stage, not at th=
e retail store level.
The principle investigator of the University of Minnesota study, Francisco =
Diez-Gonzalez, told CNSNews.com that "organic agriculture was more suscepti=
ble to carry fecal indicators."
"In many ways it is confirming what is believed, indeed, if you are using a=
nimal manure for fertilizer, the chances that you are going to get fecal ba=
cteria on the product are greater," Diez-Gonzalez said.
The higher incidences of fecal contamination in organic foods were linked t=
o heavy reliance on composted animal manure for fertilizer. While conventio=
nally grown produce may use some manure, it chiefly relies on chemical fert=
ilizers. Past research has shown that Animal manure is the principal source=
of pathogens such as salmonella, campylobacter, and E. coli 0157:H7
But Diez-Gonzalez cautioned that his study does not show organic produce to=
be a higher risk food choice. "What the data is telling organic agricultur=
e is there is some room for improvement," Diez-Gonzalez said.
"I don't think we need to be more concerned about organic vegetables. Based=
on the epidemiological evidence, we can say that both organic and conventi=
onal vegetables would pose the same [food borne pathogen] risk for consumer=
s," he added.
But Diez-Gonzalez did acknowledge that a higher presence of generic E. coli=
could mean higher risk for deadly pathogens."We use E. coli as indicator t=
hat the potential could be there [for food borne pathogens]," Diez-Gonzalez=
explained.
Asked about how consumers -- who buy organic food for health reasons -- wil=
l react to his study showing higher fecal contamination, Diez-Gonzalez resp=
onded, "The consumer perception may not be very favorable and that is a pot=
ential consequence."
'Facade is crumbling'
Alex Avery, director of research and education at the free-market Hudson In=
stitute's Center for Global Food Issues, says the latest scientific study c=
onfirms years of research that organic produce may pose a higher risk for f=
ood-borne illness.
"Organic food activists, which include many activist researchers entrenched=
in liberal university halls, have claimed organic food superiority for yea=
rs in their efforts to mold society and scare consumers into buying their p=
olitically correct fare. Now their farcical facade is crumbling," Avery tol=
d CNSNews.com.
Avery was particularly concerned about a possibly elevated risk for pathoge=
ns such as salmonella and the deadly E. coli O157:H7 in organic produce. E.=
coli O157:H7 can attack the kidneys and liver, causing severe internal dam=
age and even death, especially among the elderly and young children.
Avery called the risk of contracting salmonella from organic food a "crap s=
hoot," with the pay off being "diarrhea, typhoid fever, and Reiter's Syndro=
me that causes joint pain and painful urination that can last for years aft=
er the initial salmonella infection."
The University of Minnesota study found salmonella in one sample of organic=
lettuce and one sample of organic green peppers. The researchers collected=
476 Minnesota produce samples from 32 organic farms and 129 samples from e=
ight conventional farms. The produce analyzed included unwashed tomatoes, l=
ettuce, green peppers, cucumbers, broccoli, apples, and strawberries.
The study reported that "an increasing number of gastrointestinal disease o=
utbreaks have been linked to the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables=
," accounting for a total of 148 outbreaks between 1990 and 2001.
The study found organic lettuce had the highest rate of fecal contamination=
, with a rate of over 22 percent. And Avery says consumers can't assume the=
y can simply "wash off" the fecal matter from the lettuce.
"Past research shows that E. coli 0157 can enter into the lettuce through t=
he roots and be inside the lettuce, meaning you can't wash it off," Avery s=
aid.
Organic: 'Most especially at risk'
The controversy over the safety of organic food began in 1997, when Robert =
Tauxe, chief of the food-borne illness division of the Centers for Disease =
Control, addressed pathogens that thrive in manure. Tauxe was quoted in the=
Journal of the American Medical Association as saying, "Organic means a fo=
od was grown in animal manure."
The article in the 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association implica=
ted "organically grown, unprocessed foods produced without... pesticides or=
preservatives" as an increasing source of food-borne illness.
The nationally syndicated television news program American Investigator als=
o quoted the Food and Drug Administration's Virlie Walker as warning Americ=
ans that, "Most especially at risk [for food borne pathogens] are your orga=
nic products because they could be fertilized with manure."
Walker, the spokesperson for the FDA's Denver district, told the news progr=
am <
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=FDPOISON.USN> in June 1998=
, "We do encourage folks to pay special attention to cleaning their organic=
products."
In 2000, ABC's John Stossel, followed up with a similar television report o=
n 20/20 about the potential bacterial dangers of organic produce.
Diez-Gonzalez believes his findings of increased fecal contamination in org=
anic food will not surprise consumers "if they have been following the medi=
a [reports]."
"Most likely, [our study] is going to serve to prove that some in media wer=
e right in terms of the E. coli, the fecal contamination, but not in terms =
of pathogens," Diez-Gonzalez said.
'Lightening rod for public officials'
Avery sees the issue of organic food politics as being too hot to handle fo=
r most food regulators.
"Organic food production has become a lightening rod for public officials. =
The CDC does not want to touch this with a ten foot pole," Avery said.
Referring to the CDC's Tauxe -- and his comments about organic food in 1997=
-- Avery said the organic lobby "went ballistic and inundated the CDC with=
phone calls."
"This research continues to raise the red flags that have been raised in th=
e past by credible food safety experts like Tauxe at the CDC. How many red =
flags have to be raised in order to get stricter manure regulations?" Avery=
asked.
Avery also believes that the driving force behind organic produce, the fear=
of chemical pesticides, is completely unwarranted.
"The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences,=
found in 1999 that the cancer risk from pesticide residue is theoretically=
lower than the risk from naturally occurring carcinogens. Both types are t=
oo low to be appreciable cancer risks," Avery explained.
"We are still looking for the first cancer death victim from pesticide resi=
dues. But we have several examples of children killed by pathogenic bacteri=
a on organic produce," he added.
Received on Thu Jun 17 2004 - 17:24:19 EDT