"TexMex" > wrote in message
...
> Zakhar wrote:
> >>>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just those received
> >>>
> >>>>from eating onions. You could say the same thing about meat, for
> >>>
> >>>>instance.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally comes from the
> >>>animal's intestinal tract.
> >>
> >>There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> From a food safety advocacy website:
>
> While it might seem strange that fruit and vegetables would come
> in contact with the human and animal feces that often harbors
> pathogenic bacteria, there are many routes by which this can
> happen. Wild animals whether small, such as rodents or birds, or
> large such as deer, can often gain access to a farm or orchard
> during the growing season and can contaminated produce with
> their feces and even other animals' feces with which they've
> come into contact. The water with which produce comes into
> contact while growing should be clean; yet, well water or nearby
> streams can become contaminated and rainwater runoff can bring
> contamination from land higher up, thereby contaminating the
> crops. Lastly, the application of manure from cattle or poultry
> can easily introduce pathogens. There are no federal rules or
> regulations regarding the use of fresh manure as a fertilizer
> for produce. As of February, 1998, voluntary organic standards
> for delaying the application of raw manure recommended not
> applying it within 60 days of harvest. Yet, E. coli O157:H7 and
> Salmonella have been shown to survive for many months in soil.
>
> The location of the farm or orchard or processing facilities
> near other farm animals can also result in contamination. It is
> believed that some bacteria can form spores and be blown in dust
> onto nearby produce or into water used for rinsing. Birds, as
> well, have been know to carry pathogens such as Campylobacter
> and E. coli O157:H7, so proximity can be an issue.
>
> Harvesting introduces the human element. Unclean hands can
> contaminate fresh produce with human pathogens such as hepatitis
> A. Workers can walk through contaminated dirt and climb up
> ladders placing their hands on rungs they have just soiled.
> Often, workers sit on their picking bags while taking a break.
> Baskets are placed on the ground and can easily get contaminated
> soil in them. Thus, previously pristine produce can be
> subsequently contaminated during harvest.
>
> The processing facility itself can be left open to contamination
> from dust or animals. Dirt floors can contribute to the risk of
> contamination. In the processing shed, produce can be rinsed
> with unclean water, whether contaminated by dust or animals or
> previous produce passing through the process. Tools such as
> filters, knives or fingernails may not be sterilized between
> processes or may left in a place where they can again become
> contaminated via dust, nonpotable water or animals. A part may
> fall on the floor, be picked up and put back into the process
> again without being properly cleaned. Lastly, the final
> packaging materials, cartons, etc. can be contaminated by
> previous fruit or tainted water, by being set on contaminated
> ground tainted by manure, or by being transported in a vehicle
> that previously held animals.
> http://tinyurl.com/vd0z

I asked for evidence. This is just a list of "can this and can that".

>
> >>Mushrooms are grown in shit.
> >
> > Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
> > http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm
>
> Composted manure is still *manure* no matter how much straw or sawdust
> or other material is added.

Compost is compost dummy. It's like me stating it's composted straw. You're
nearer the composition of manure than mushroom compost.


>
> >>Birds fly over the fields and drop loads indiscriminately. Farm
> >>workers relieve themselves in the fields as they collect the produce.
Etc.
> >
> > You tosser, surely you can do better than this drivel.
>
> See above, ******.

Still drivel.

>
> >>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people espousing
> >>>>vegetarian diets because they think it will protect them from food
> >>>>poisoning. Not true.
> >>>
> >>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
> >>
> >>Ipse dixit. Raw faddists are at higher than average risk of food-borne
> >>illness, especially when sprouts are consumed.
> >
> > THAT does not follow,
>
> Which would be "non sequitur," not "ipse dixit."
>
> > or "Ipse dixit" as you arrogantly claim.
>
> My claim was supported with two links, so I beg to differ that it's ipse
> dixit.
>
> > Raw food has never been mentioned.

It's a red herring.

READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".

>
> Vegetarianism, though, was. Raw faddists comprise a segment of the
> veg-nism. The issue the OP raised was vegetarianism and food safety. My
> remark was apropos, dickhead.
>
> > READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".
>
> I did, you smelly cocksucking racist. And your comment is ipse dixit --
> an unsupported assertion (or "so you say"). So where's your evidence?

You'd say something like "Why don't you go back to the old country?"
Wouldn't you, TexMex?

Most food borne illness is from meat.

Start with

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html


>
> I see you didn't bother commenting on the following links. You should've
> read them before making such a big fat ass of yourself.
>
> >>http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd042103f.html
> >>http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/13/bz13.htm

It's about raw food, not about the general vegetarian diet that we were
discussing.
>