pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>>>>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
>>>>>>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>>>>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>---restore1---
>>>>>>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
>>>>>>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
>>>>>>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're comparing apples and oranges,
>>>>>
>>>>>Fudge.
>>>>
>>>>Apples, oranges, and now fudge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.
>>>>
>>>>I'm correct.
>>>
>>>Unsupported assertion.
>>
>>Supported previously in the thread.
>
> Absolutely

:-)

>>>>>---restore4---
>>>>>"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
>>>>>outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
>>>>>says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
>>>>>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
>>>>>http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
>>>>>
>>>>>To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
>>>>>"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".
>>>>
>>>>I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE*
>>>
>>>"we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".
>>
>>It's an estimate. "Up to" isn't a concrete number. The data I provided
>>are concrete.
>
> Estimates are based upon available evidence.

No, estimates are based upon conjecture.

>>>>which doesn't
>>>>discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
>>>>admittedly rare,
>>>
>>>There ya go.
>>
>>Campylobacter isn't the only pathogen which affects humans. Most
>>food-borne illnesses, as demonstrated in the information I kindly
>>posted, are not even tied down to specific foods or contagions. What IS
>>known about food-borne illness with a great degree of certainty is that
>>produce is more often the cause of outbreaks because (a) produce isn't
>>subject to the kinds or amount of scrutiny of meat and (b) produce is
>>more likely to be served at temperatures consistent with potential risk
>>of bacterial growth.
>
> Produce can be and is cross-contaminated by animal-derived products.

Produce is also cross-contaminated because animals are part of nature,
as are we.

<...>
>>>>but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
>>>>ill from undercooked tainted meat).
>>>
>>>Millions a year, is low?
>>
>>Yes.
>
> You idiot.

Numbers are relative. You don't comprehend the scope of large numbers or
appreciate the scale involved.

>>There are 300 million people in the US. Most of them average three
>>meals per day. That's 328.5 billion meals per year. The rate of
>>infection of Campylobacter, from your ESTIMATE, is a very tiny fraction
>>-- about one in every one-hundred thousand meals at the maximum number
>>offered of 4 million. Stop being such an alarmist.
>
> Stop trying to gloss over a major cause of a potentially very serious illness.

It's not a gloss. The odds of becoming infected by Campylobacter are
about one in every 100,000 meals. Consider these odds:
Odds of drowning in your bathtub: 1 in 685,000
Odds of being struck by lightning this year: 1 in 240,000
Odds that the pilot of your airliner is a convicted drunk driver: 1 in 117
Odds that you'll be injured on the job: 1 in 24,000
Odds of hitting a hole-in-one: 1 in 15,000
Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250
Odds of being audited by the IRS: 1 in 100
Odds that your next car ride will be your last: 1 in 4 million
http://origin.bankrate.com/brm/news/...20030609b1.asp

> You disgust me,

Awww, no Christmas card for you again next year.

> .. and probably most others reading your hateful tripe.

They deserve it, too.