girlyman ron homo-ton wrote:

> > > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > chico wrote:
> > > > > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, what's your point? It's a hygiene problem in every
> > > > > > instance. I don't really care about the fact that it
> > > > > > originates in cows as opposed to originating in the produce
> > > > > > it ends up on, that's not the issue. Hygiene and
> > > > > > contamination prevention are the issues. E.coli affects
> > > > > > both vegetarians and meat-eaters. Both would benefit from
> > > > > > better food hygiene.
> > > > >
> > > > > That was the whole point behind posting what I did:
> > > > > Organic doesn't mean "healthier," "more nutritious," or
> > > > > "safer." The latest food-borne scare involves organic produce
> > > > > -- just as the Odwalla incident several years ago did.
> > > > > Organic only means free of SYNTHETIC pesticides. In the US,
> > > > > there is no oversight of how much pesticide is used on
> > > > > organic crops, nor is there testing for any residue on
> > > > > organic produce (conventional foods, though, play by a
> > > > > tougher set of safety rules).
> > > >
> > > > They should both play by the same rules, except for the obvious
> > > > stricter rule that organics have to follow of only using organic
> > > > methods.
> > > >
> > > > > > As someone with a botany hobby
> > > > >
> > > > > Smoking pot isn't "botany."
> > > >
> > > > You never listen. Anyone who knows me online or in real life
> > > > knows that I'm very interested in fragrant and culinary plants.
> > > >
> > > > > > I know full well that good organic
> > > > > > soil often has animal matter. I'm not claiming otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Googling "scented nectar veganic..." Heh.
> > > >
> > > > Did you not see where I wrote 'often'? Do you not agree that
> > > > often organic means they use manure? Yes there are good
> > > > veganic soils out there, but I'm sure they are infrequent.
> > > >
> > > > > > There are better hygiene practices that could be followed,
> > > > >
> > > > > How about a little testing to see just how safe foods are?
> > > >
> > > > Testing is one element of food hygiene.
> > > >
> > > > > > Monitoring of
> > > > > > irrigation water, ensuring manured soil base has a
> > > > > > non-manured covering of a couple inches, things like that
> > > > > > would help.
> > > > >
> > > > > So would testing and product labeling that would bring
> > > > > organics to the same standards in those areas as conventional
> > > > > produce.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any labels on conventional produce. If you think
> > > > it's needed for organics, then it's only logical to conclude
> > > > it's needed for conventionals too.
> > >
> > > The city of El Paso, Texas is using more and more of available
> > > water and releasing treated sewage water to farmers for
> > > irrigation.
> >
> > WTF are you rambling about, sissy? El Paso, like other cities in the
> > Southwest, has a limited water supply that's insufficient for its
> > growing population. Many cities in the SW reclaim/recycle water for
> > their fresh water supply using a variety of methods. Many cities --
> > El Paso has been on the cutting edge of this (Austin has also been
> > selling "Dillo Dirt" for years) -- compost the solids for use in a
> > variety of crops; the compost is acceptable for use on both
> > ornamental and food crops. Reclaimed water can be diverted to uses
> > that don't require extensive treatment (irrigation, manufacturing,
> > etc.) or for the municipal supply.
> >
> > El Paso:
> > http://www.epwu.org/reclaimed_water/r_water.html
> >
> > Albuquerque:
> > http://www.abcwua.org/wastewater/plant.html
> >
> > Austin:
> > http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/dillo.htm
> >
> > > Apparently the city requires more water and are going to recirc
> > > the treated sewer water into the mains for reconsumption by the
> > > city.
> >
> > You apparently didn't comprehend whatever it was you read.
> >
> > > Apart from there being a water war starting to heat up,
> >
> > STARTING? It's been going for over sixty years, dumb ass.
> >
> > > it's obvious
> > > that the water being sent to the farmers could have significant
> > > levels of E.coli.
> >
> > No, it's not "obvious" because water diverted for irrigation is
> > treated. The bigger danger for E coli is run off from ranching
> > operations -- but, wrt the spinach outbreak, the California farms
> > are about 1500 miles away. Dipshit.
>
>
> You NEVER read what I posted.

Yes, I did. You got whatever you read wrong. You have a source? No?
Didn't think you did.

> The farmers are going to have LESS

They ALREADY have less, dumbass. You wrote about a war "starting to
heat up" when it's been brewing for over sixty years.

wrote:

>
> chico chupacabra wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I understand they are testing the groundwater
> >
> > They're testing a whole lot of stuff right now to pinpoint the
> > problem.
> >
> > > used to irrigate the
> > > spinach for the bad E. coli. If the fields in question are next to
> > > Natural Selection Farms at 1721 San Juan Highway north of San Juan
> > > Bautista, then they need to test both the spinach and the
> > > groundwater for perchlorate as well.
> >
> > Right now, the e coli issue is a little more important because it's
> > acutely lethal for human beings, dope. Possible thyroid problems
> > resulting from over-exposure of perchlorates would take a very long
> > time to develop and are reversible. The effects of e coli,
> > particularly among the elderly and the young and those who are
> > immuno-compromised, aren't so easily reversed -- especially when
> > they die.
> >
>
> Escherichia Coli bacteria are actually necessary for us to live - not
> "acutely lethal for human beings" - that would a -lack- of E. Coli.

E coli O157:H7 *is* acutely lethal for humans, dipshit. You can crack
all the jokes you want about one death, but how many more would die
without intensive medical intervention for HUS?

> The strain you are worried about kills far more people through beef
> contamination.

GROUND beef, not just beef.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7
>
> I for one

You for one are a contrarian BSer.

chico chupacabra wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > frant wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > > chico chupacabra wrote:
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I understand they are testing the groundwater
> > > >>
> > > >> They're testing a whole lot of stuff right now to pinpoint the
> > > >> problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> > used to irrigate the
> > > >> > spinach for the bad E. coli. If the fields in question are
> > > >> > next to Natural Selection Farms at 1721 San Juan Highway north
> > > >> > of San Juan Bautista, then they need to test both the spinach
> > > >> > and the groundwater for perchlorate as well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Right now, the e coli issue is a little more important because
> > > >> it's acutely lethal for human beings, dope. Possible thyroid
> > > >> problems resulting from over-exposure of perchlorates would take
> > > >> a very long time to develop and are reversible. The effects of e
> > > >> coli, particularly among the elderly and the young and those who
> > > >> are immuno-compromised, aren't so easily reversed -- especially
> > > >> when they die.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Escherichia Coli bacteria are actually necessary for us to live -
> > > > not "acutely lethal for human beings" - that would a -lack- of E.
> > > > Coli.
> > > >
> > > > The strain you are worried about kills far more people through
> > > > beef contamination.
>
> I know it's not like you to pay attention to silly things like
> "details," you irrationally contrarian shithead. Let the facts get in
> your way for once: through consumption of *GROUND* beef. There are no
> widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to steaks, ribs,
> roasts, or any other whole cut of beef.
>

I stand by my statement: more people die from contaminated beef than
from spinach. Thanks for your further qualification, which for the
record is incorrect.

http://www.pubmedcentral.org/article...i?artid=204119


> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7
> > > >
> > > > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
> > > > heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!
> > > ==========================
> > >
> > > Looks like, despite your best efforts, you unfortunately didn't get
> > > one of the bags of spinach specially seasoned with the delicious E.
> > > coli O157:H7 strain that were out there (or else you didn't eat
> > > enough of it)..... O well, better luck next time! :-)
> > >
> > > (Note: I've just read that sometimes the incubation period can be
> > > as long as 8 days, so don't give up hope yet!)
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your encouragement
> >
> > OMG! One person died! Run for the hills!
>
> Never mind your lack of respect for the dead, have you bothered
> counting up how many people have been hospitalized with renal failure,
> convulsions, etc.? Or how many people now need kidney transplants,
> multiple blood transfusions, etc., who were perfectly healthy
> individuals before eating tainted produce? Try sixty-six total at last
> count, twenty of whom have hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS) -- which is
> often accompanied by acute respiratory failure as well -- and require
> intensive medical care.
>

Yes, every death or illness is a tragedy, and of course, we should try
to avoid.
However, 66 people injured (or 130 from one of your links below) is not
much compared to the countless thousands injured by the prescription
drugs, car accidents, cancers, pneumonias, etc. etc. Even aspirin is a
more frightening and deadly killer than E.Coli infected spinach. Not
to mention things like aerial bombardment which can also be a killer -
but not so newsworthy is it.

However I am scared by anything that "requires intensive medical care"
as you put it.. seeing as ~ 200000 people die from medical errors
every year.

Suppose your daughter last year had diarrhea - there may have been
spinach in her meal the day before. Do you take her in to a hospital?
What about the same symptoms now?

> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...b7wRk&refer=us
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8K8J4GG1.html
> http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic238.htm
> [snip]

Cheers - shevek

wrote:

>
> chico chupacabra wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > frant wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > chico chupacabra wrote:
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I understand they are testing the groundwater
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They're testing a whole lot of stuff right now to pinpoint
> > > > >> the problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > used to irrigate the
> > > > >> > spinach for the bad E. coli. If the fields in question are
> > > > >> > next to Natural Selection Farms at 1721 San Juan Highway
> > > > >> > north of San Juan Bautista, then they need to test both
> > > > >> > the spinach and the groundwater for perchlorate as well.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Right now, the e coli issue is a little more important
> > > > >> because it's acutely lethal for human beings, dope. Possible
> > > > >> thyroid problems resulting from over-exposure of
> > > > >> perchlorates would take a very long time to develop and are
> > > > >> reversible. The effects of e coli, particularly among the
> > > > >> elderly and the young and those who are immuno-compromised,
> > > > >> aren't so easily reversed -- especially when they die.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Escherichia Coli bacteria are actually necessary for us to
> > > > > live - not "acutely lethal for human beings" - that would a
> > > > > -lack- of E. Coli.
> > > > >
> > > > > The strain you are worried about kills far more people through
> > > > > beef contamination.
> >
> > I know it's not like you to pay attention to silly things like
> > "details," you irrationally contrarian shithead. Let the facts get
> > in your way for once: through consumption of *GROUND* beef. There
> > are no widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to steaks,
> > ribs, roasts, or any other whole cut of beef.
> >
>
> I stand by my statement:

Fine. Your source says, "A total of 147 *GROUND* beef samples..." etc.

> http://www.pubmedcentral.org/article...i?artid=204119
>
>
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7
> > > > >
> > > > > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right
> > > > > after I heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag.
> > > > > Tasty!
> > > > ==========================
> > > >
> > > > Looks like, despite your best efforts, you unfortunately didn't
> > > > get one of the bags of spinach specially seasoned with the
> > > > delicious E. coli O157:H7 strain that were out there (or else
> > > > you didn't eat enough of it)..... O well, better luck next
> > > > time! :-)
> > > >
> > > > (Note: I've just read that sometimes the incubation period can
> > > > be as long as 8 days, so don't give up hope yet!)
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your encouragement
> > >
> > > OMG! One person died! Run for the hills!
> >
> > Never mind your lack of respect for the dead, have you bothered
> > counting up how many people have been hospitalized with renal
> > failure, convulsions, etc.? Or how many people now need kidney
> > transplants, multiple blood transfusions, etc., who were perfectly
> > healthy individuals before eating tainted produce? Try sixty-six
> > total at last count, twenty of whom have hemolytic-uremic syndrome
> > (HUS) -- which is often accompanied by acute respiratory failure as
> > well -- and require intensive medical care.
> >
>
> Yes, every death or illness is a tragedy, and of course, we should try
> to avoid.
> However, 66 people injured (or 130 from one of your links below) is
> not much

Yes, it is. Driving is risky; eating shouldn't be. Drugs come with
risks; food shouldn't. Medical procedures include risks; food shouldn't.
Hospitalization -- putting someone among a very sick population with a
variety of compromised immune systems -- is with its risks; food
shouldn't have such risks.

And with your endless bullshit about treating illnesses with diet, one
might think you'd have a little more concern about such outbreaks
related to the kind food you recommend (i.e., organic vegetarian).

wrote:

> However, 66 people injured (or 130 from one of your links below)

Sixty-six are hospitalized, 130 cases of illness have been attributed
to the tainted spinach. The virulence of this strain has caused 50%
more infected people (one-half compared to one-third in most other
cases) to require hospitalization than in any of the GROUND beef
incidents.

wrote:

> I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
> heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!

Since you've written about your opposition to health insurance and
medication, as well as bemoaned an aversion most people have for
"death" (some of us call it "will to live"), do you carry a DNR card
with you for these kinds of instances? Or is all that more of your empty
bullshit -- and you WOULD want to live and receive expensive medical
treatment should your kidneys and lungs were to fail, etc.?

chico chupacabra corrected an incomplete edit:

> Since you've written about your opposition to health insurance and
> medication, as well as bemoaned an aversion most people have for
> "death" (some of us call it "will to live"), do you carry a DNR card
> with you for these kinds of instances? Or is all that more of your
> empty bullshit -- and you WOULD want to live and receive expensive
> medical treatment should your kidneys and lungs were to fail, etc.?

last line should read:

> medical treatment should your kidneys and lungs fail, etc.?

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> wrote:
<..>
> > > > > > The strain you are worried about kills far more people through
> > > > > > beef contamination.
> > >
> > > I know it's not like you to pay attention to silly things like
> > > "details," you irrationally contrarian shithead. Let the facts get
> > > in your way for once: through consumption of *GROUND* beef. There
> > > are no widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to steaks,
> > > ribs, roasts, or any other whole cut of beef.
> > >
> >
> > I stand by my statement:
>
> Fine. Your source says, "A total of 147 *GROUND* beef samples..." etc.

WHERE? Cite?

> > http://www.pubmedcentral.org/article...i?artid=204119

lying psycho bitch Lesley asked:

> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> <..>
> > > > > > > The strain you are worried about kills far more people
> > > > > > > through beef contamination.
> > > >
> > > > I know it's not like you to pay attention to silly things like
> > > > "details," you irrationally contrarian shithead. Let the facts
> > > > get in your way for once: through consumption of *GROUND* beef.
> > > > There are no widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to
> > > > steaks, ribs, roasts, or any other whole cut of beef.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I stand by my statement:
> >
> > Fine. Your source says, "A total of 147 *GROUND* beef samples..."
> > etc.
>
> WHERE? Cite?

The part with the heading "Materials and Methods" at the top of page 2394, for starters. I guess neither of you ****s bothered to read the conclusion, either.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
Meat and poultry samples. A total of 147 GROUND beef [my emphasis], 250 pork,
237 chicken, and 200 lamb retail samples was obtained from the
refrigerated-meats section of several Madison-area grocery stores from June
1985 to July 1986.

Additionally, a total of 17 GROUND beef [my emphasis], 14 pork, 6 poultry, and 5
lamb retail samples was obtained from several grocery stores in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada....

Isolation of E. coli O157:H7 from retail meats and poultry. A total of 162 GROUND
beef [my emphasis], 264 pork, 263 poultry, and 205 lamb samples was assayed
for E. coli O157:H7. The organism was isolated from 6 beef (3.7%), 4 pork (1.5%), 4
poultry (1.5%), and 4 lamb (2.0%) samples....

The types of meat and poultry specimens from which E. coli O157:H7 was isoltaed
include GROUND beef [my emphasis]... GROUND pork [my emphasis]...


> > > http://www.pubmedcentral.org/article...i?artid=204119

I dealt with shevek's goalpost move. Note that I wrote, "There are no widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to steaks, ribs, roasts, or any other whole cut of beef." There are at least two SMALL "outbreaks" involving roast beef; one involved 70 diners at a fair in North Dakota (the problem was isolated to the buffet), and the other at another (isolated) buffet at a Wisconsin university that sickened ~120 people. A couple more incidents have involved tainted dairy.

Nearly every *widespread* case, though, has involved either produce or GROUND beef.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap15.html

lying traitor "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

> pearl wrote:
>
> > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > wrote:
> > <..>
> > > > > > > > The strain you are worried about kills far more people
> > > > > > > > through beef contamination.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it's not like you to pay attention to silly things like
> > > > > "details," you irrationally contrarian shithead. Let the facts
> > > > > get in your way for once: through consumption of *GROUND* beef.
> > > > > There are no widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to
> > > > > steaks, ribs, roasts, or any other whole cut of beef.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I stand by my statement:
> > >
> > > Fine. Your source says, "A total of 147 *GROUND* beef samples..."
> > > etc.
> >
> > WHERE? Cite?
>
> The part with the heading "Materials and Methods" at the top of page 2394,
>
> MATERIAL AND METHODS
> Meat and poultry samples. A total of 147 GROUND beef [my emphasis], 250 pork,
> 237 chicken, and 200 lamb retail samples was obtained from the
> refrigerated-meats section of several Madison-area grocery stores from June
> 1985 to July 1986.
>
> Additionally, a total of 17 GROUND beef [my emphasis], 14 pork, 6 poultry, and 5
> lamb retail samples was obtained from several grocery stores in Calgary, Alberta,
> Canada....
>
> Isolation of E. coli O157:H7 from retail meats and poultry. A total of 162 GROUND
> beef [my emphasis], 264 pork, 263 poultry, and 205 lamb samples was assayed
> for E. coli O157:H7. The organism was isolated from 6 beef (3.7%), 4 pork (1.5%), 4
> poultry (1.5%), and 4 lamb (2.0%) samples....
>
> The types of meat and poultry specimens from which E. coli O157:H7 was isoltaed
> include GROUND beef [my emphasis]... GROUND pork [my emphasis]...
>
>
> > > > http://www.pubmedcentral.org/article...i?artid=204119
>
> I dealt with shevek's goalpost move. Note that I wrote, "There are no widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to steaks,
ribs, roasts, or any other whole cut of beef." There are at least two SMALL "outbreaks" involving roast beef; one involved 70 diners
at a fair in North Dakota (the problem was isolated to the buffet), and the other at another (isolated) buffet at a Wisconsin
university that sickened ~120 people. A couple more incidents have involved tainted dairy.
>
> Nearly every *widespread* case, though, has involved either produce or GROUND beef.
> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap15.html

Righto. I'll be sure to avoid all meat like the plague. LOL.

really weird psycho bitch Lesley wrote:

> > > > > > > > > The strain you are worried about kills far more people
> > > > > > > > > through beef contamination.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know it's not like you to pay attention to silly things
> > > > > > like "details," you irrationally contrarian shithead. Let
> > > > > > the facts get in your way for once: through consumption of
> > > > > > *GROUND* beef. There are no widespread outbreaks of E coli
> > > > > > infection linked to steaks, ribs, roasts, or any other whole
> > > > > > cut of beef.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I stand by my statement:
> > > >
> > > > Fine. Your source says, "A total of 147 *GROUND* beef
> > > > samples..." etc.
> > >
> > > WHERE? Cite?
> >
> > The part with the heading "Materials and Methods" at the top of page
> > 2394,
> >
> > MATERIAL AND METHODS
> > Meat and poultry samples. A total of 147 GROUND beef [my emphasis],
> > 250 pork, 237 chicken, and 200 lamb retail samples was obtained from
> > the refrigerated-meats section of several Madison-area grocery
> > stores from June 1985 to July 1986.
> >
> > Additionally, a total of 17 GROUND beef [my emphasis], 14 pork, 6
> > poultry, and 5 lamb retail samples was obtained from several grocery
> > stores in Calgary, Alberta, Canada....
> >
> > Isolation of E. coli O157:H7 from retail meats and poultry. A total
> > of 162 GROUND beef [my emphasis], 264 pork, 263 poultry, and 205
> > lamb samples was assayed for E. coli O157:H7. The organism was
> > isolated from 6 beef (3.7%), 4 pork (1.5%), 4 poultry (1.5%), and 4
> > lamb (2.0%) samples....
> >
> > The types of meat and poultry specimens from which E. coli O157:H7
> > was isoltaed
> > include GROUND beef [my emphasis]... GROUND pork [my emphasis]...
> >
> >
> > > > > http://www.pubmedcentral.org/article...i?artid=204119
> >
> > I dealt with shevek's goalpost move. Note that I wrote, "There are
> > no widespread outbreaks of E coli infection linked to steaks,
> ribs, roasts, or any other whole cut of beef." There are at least two
> SMALL "outbreaks" involving roast beef; one involved 70 diners at a
> fair in North Dakota (the problem was isolated to the buffet), and the
> other at another (isolated) buffet at a Wisconsin university that
> sickened ~120 people. A couple more incidents have involved tainted
> dairy.
> >
> > Nearly every *widespread* case, though, has involved either produce
> > or GROUND beef. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap15.html
>
> Righto. I'll be sure to avoid all meat like the plague.

And lettuce, spinach, alfalfa sprouts, raw cider vinegar, raw apple
juice, etc. -- the cause of more food-borne illness
outbreaks in the last two decades than meat.

chico chupacabra added:

> really weird psycho bitch Lesley wrote:

<...>
> > Righto. I'll be sure to avoid all meat like the plague.
>
> And lettuce, spinach, alfalfa sprouts, raw cider vinegar, raw apple
> juice, etc. -- the cause of more food-borne illness
> outbreaks in the last two decades than meat.

Strawberries, raspberries, parsley and other fresh herbs, melons, green
onions...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/nati...es-051201.html

just-can't help-lying "chico chupacabra" > lied in message news
pearl wrote:

> > Righto. I'll be sure to avoid all meat like the plague.
>
> And lettuce, spinach, alfalfa sprouts, raw cider vinegar, raw apple
> juice, etc. -- the cause of more food-borne illness
> outbreaks in the last two decades than meat.

Note that 'chico' writes "outbreaks" rather than individual cases.
He once posted the following..

...[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

I countered with the following, which he predictably snipped:

"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.
...
Although found in many farm animals, Campylobacter in poultry is
causing experts the most concern. There have been several studies
pointing to high levels of Campylobacter present on poultry at the retail
level, including a recent two-year Minnesota Department of Health study
that found that 88 percent of poultry sampled from local supermarkets
tested positive for the bacteria.
.....'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

- And then there's the Listeria, Vibrio, Yersinia, E. coli O157:H7,
Shigella and Salmonella... Yummy!

lesely just-can't help-lying:
>
> > > Righto. I'll be sure to avoid all meat like the plague.
> >
> > And lettuce, spinach, alfalfa sprouts, raw cider vinegar, raw apple
> > juice, etc. -- the cause of more food-borne illness
> > outbreaks in the last two decades than meat.
>
> Note that 'chico' writes "outbreaks" rather than individual cases.

We can discuss either outbreaks or individual cases: the data for
food-borne illnesses supports the fact that produce is as at least as
risky as meat.

> ...[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

Yes, my point is affirmed by the data. More people are sickened by
produce than by meat.

chico chupacabra wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I understand they are testing the groundwater
> > >
> > > They're testing a whole lot of stuff right now to pinpoint the
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > > used to irrigate the
> > > > spinach for the bad E. coli. If the fields in question are next to
> > > > Natural Selection Farms at 1721 San Juan Highway north of San Juan
> > > > Bautista, then they need to test both the spinach and the
> > > > groundwater for perchlorate as well.
> > >
> > > Right now, the e coli issue is a little more important because it's
> > > acutely lethal for human beings, dope. Possible thyroid problems
> > > resulting from over-exposure of perchlorates would take a very long
> > > time to develop and are reversible. The effects of e coli,
> > > particularly among the elderly and the young and those who are
> > > immuno-compromised, aren't so easily reversed -- especially when
> > > they die.
> > >
> >
> > Escherichia Coli bacteria are actually necessary for us to live - not
> > "acutely lethal for human beings" - that would a -lack- of E. Coli.
>
> E coli O157:H7 *is* acutely lethal for humans, dipshit. You can crack
> all the jokes you want about one death, but how many more would die
> without intensive medical intervention for HUS?
>

Wow, again untrue, imagine my surprise. The presence of O157:H7 in a
human is often asymptomatic, in other words, no effect at all. You
mean *can be* acutely lethal.

I'm not cracking any jokes about anyone's death. I'm cracking jokes at
various media sources who use the phrase "E. Coli outbreak", seemingly
unaware that billions of E. Coli are living inside every one of us.
Perhaps somebody should tell them their epidermis is showing.

Cheers - I.C.

wrote:

> I'm not cracking any jokes about anyone's death.

Liar.

> I'm cracking jokes
> at various media sources who use the phrase "E. Coli outbreak",

Which is what it is. The lack of specificity over which strain isn't
especially relevant except to anal-retentive assholes.

> seemingly unaware that billions of E. Coli are living inside every one
> of us.

Lack of specificity over a particular strain doesn't denote ignorance of
that fact.

just-can't-stop-lying "chico chupacabra" > lied in message ...

> pearl wrote:
> > > > Righto. I'll be sure to avoid all meat like the plague.
> > >
> > > And lettuce, spinach, alfalfa sprouts, raw cider vinegar, raw apple
> > > juice, etc. -- the cause of more food-borne illness
> > > outbreaks in the last two decades than meat.
> >
> > Note that 'chico' writes "outbreaks" rather than individual cases.
>
> We can discuss either outbreaks or individual cases: the data for
> food-borne illnesses supports the fact that produce is as at least as
> risky as meat.

What happened to the evidence I posted that trashes your claim..?

OH RIGHT.... YOU SNIPPED IT AGAIN. This just gets funnier.

> > ...[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
>
> Yes, my point is affirmed by the data. More people are sickened by
> produce than by meat.

You've some few million cases to find yet, quacko.

"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.
...
Although found in many farm animals, Campylobacter in poultry is
causing experts the most concern. There have been several studies
pointing to high levels of Campylobacter present on poultry at the retail
level, including a recent two-year Minnesota Department of Health study
that found that 88 percent of poultry sampled from local supermarkets
tested positive for the bacteria.
.....'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

chico chupacabra wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm cracking jokes
> > at various media sources who use the phrase "E. Coli outbreak",
>
> Which is what it is. The lack of specificity over which strain isn't
> especially relevant except to anal-retentive assholes.
>

It's quite relevant to those who became very sick. It's also relevant
to anyone who is interested in accuracy or logic, which to you seems
like "anal-retentive assholes" I guess.

Sometimes you can be a real homo (sapien sapien). I bet you have E.
Coli.

chico chupacabra wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
> > heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!
>
> Since you've written about your opposition to health insurance and
> medication, as well as bemoaned an aversion most people have for
> "death" (some of us call it "will to live")

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have voiced my problems with health
insurance and medications, and bemoaned -unhealthy- fear of death, an
eventuality we will all have to face. I certainly have never said I
oppose any and all medication (I don't), nor have I bemoaned a "will to
live".

> , do you carry a DNR card
> with you for these kinds of instances? Or is all that more of your empty
> bullshit -- and you WOULD want to live and receive expensive medical
> treatment should your kidneys and lungs were to fail, etc.?

I recognize the great successes of allopathic medicine. If I were shot
up, cut up, bones broken, any of a number of possible accidents, I
would certainly try to get some expensive medical treatment. Modern
reconstructive surgeries are nothing short of phenomenal. I'd even
accept antibiotics for e.g. gangrene.

"Dying ain't the shit, but it's pleasant, kind of quiet" - Notorious
B.I.G.

NON-organic spinach at center of outbreak..

'Natural Selection has recalled 34 brands of fresh spinach products,
distributed throughout the United States as well as to Canada and
Mexico. The company said the manufacturing codes turned over to
health officials from packages of spinach that had infected patients
all were from non-organic spinach. The company packages both
organic and conventionally grown spinach in separate areas at its
San Juan Bautista, Calif., plant.'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ch-ecoli_x.htm

Tsk.

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> Organic doesn't mean "healthier," "more nutritious," or "safer." The
> latest food-borne scare involves organic produce -- just as the Odwalla
> incident several years ago did. Organic only means free of SYNTHETIC
> pesticides. In the US, there is no oversight of how much pesticide is
> used on organic crops, nor is there testing for any residue on organic
> produce (conventional foods, though, play by a tougher set of
> safety rules).
>
> ===============
> WASHINGTON - A California natural-foods company was linked Friday to a
> nationwide E. coli outbreak involving packaged spinach that has killed
> one person and sickened nearly 100 others. Supermarkets across the
> country pulled spinach from shelves, and consumers tossed out the leafy
> green.
>
> Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials said they had received
> reports of illness in 19 states...
>
> The outbreak was traced to Natural Selection Foods, based in San Juan
> Bautista, Calif., and the company has voluntarily recalled products
> containing spinach. The company, which bills itself as the largest
> grower and shipper of organic produce in North America, also operates
> under the name Earthbound Farm and packages spinach for more than 30
> companies.
>
> FDA officials stressed that the bacteria had not been isolated in
> products sold by Natural Selection Foods but that the link was
> established by patient accounts of what they had eaten before becoming
> ill...
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...spinach16.html

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> chico chupacabra wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
> > > heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!

And safe!

> I recognize the great successes of allopathic medicine. If I were shot
> up, cut up, bones broken, any of a number of possible accidents, I
> would certainly try to get some expensive medical treatment. Modern
> reconstructive surgeries are nothing short of phenomenal. I'd even
> accept antibiotics for e.g. gangrene.

Think we're on the same page more-or-less, but would
like to share this..

'What Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You
To Know About Herbal Medicine!
by Danny Siegenthaler

Herbs or medicinal plants have a long history in treating
disease. In traditional Chinese medicine, for example, the
written history of herbal medicine goes back over 2000
years and herbalists in the West have used "weeds"
equally long to treat that which ails us. We are all familiar
with the virtues of Garlic, Chamomile, Peppermint,
Lavender, and other common herbs.

Interest in medicinal herbs is on the rise again and the
interest is primarily from the pharmaceutical industry,
which is always looking for 'new drugs' and more
effective substances to treat diseases, for which there
may be no or very few drugs available.

Considering the very long traditional use of herbal medicines
and the large body of evidence of their effectiveness, why is
it that we are not generally encouraged to use traditional
herbal medicine, instead of synthetic, incomplete copies of
herbs, called drugs, considering the millions of dollars
being spent looking for these seemingly elusive substances?

Herbs are considered treasures when it comes to ancient
cultures and herbalists, and many so-called weeds are
worth their weight in gold. Dandelion, Comfrey, Digitalis
(Foxglove), the Poppy, Milk Thistle, Stinging nettle, and
many others, have well-researched and established
medicinal qualities that have few, if any, rivals in the
pharmaceutical industry. Many of them, in fact, form the
bases of pharmaceutical drugs.

Research into the medicinal properties of such herbs as
the humble Dandelion is currently being undertaken by
scientists at the Royal Botanical Gardens, in Kew, west
London, who believe it could be the source of a
life-saving drug for cancer patients.

Early tests suggest that it could hold the key to warding
off cancer, which kills tens of thousands of people every
year.

Their work on the cancer-beating properties of the
dandelion, which also has a history of being used to treat
warts, is part of a much larger project to examine the
natural medicinal properties of scores of British plants
and flowers.

Professor Monique Simmonds, head of the Sustainable
Uses of Plants Group at Kew, said: "We aren't randomly
screening plants for their potential medicinal properties,
we are looking at plants which we know have a long
history of being used to treat certain medical problems.

"We will be examining them to find out what active
compounds they contain which can treat the illness."

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, this group of
scientists appears to be looking for active ingredients,
which can later be synthesized and then made into
pharmaceutical drugs. This is not the way herbs are
used traditionally and their functions inevitably change
when the active ingredients are used in isolation. That's
like saying that the only important part of a caris the
engine - nothing else needs to be included.

So, why is there this need for isolating the 'active
ingredients'?

As a scientist, I can understand the need for the
scientific process of establishing the fact that a particular
herb works on a particular disease, pathogen or what ever,
and the need to know why and how it does so. But, and
this is a BIG but, as a doctor of Chinese medicine I also
understand the process of choosing and prescribing
COMBINATIONS of herbs, which have a synergistic
effect to treat not just the disease, but any underlying
condition as well as the person with the disease. That
is a big difference and not one that is easily tested
using standard scientific methodologies.

Using anecdotal evidence, which after all has a history
of thousands of years, seems to escape my esteemed
colleagues all together. Rather than trying to isolate the
active ingredient(s), why not test these herbs, utilizing
the knowledge of professional herbalists, on patients
in vivo, using the myriad of technology available to
researchers and medical diagnosticians to see how
and why these herbs work in living, breathing patients,
rather than in a test tube or on laboratory rats and mice
(which, by the way, are not humans and have a different,
although some what similar, physiology to us)?

I suspect, that among the reasons for not following the
above procedure is that the pharmaceutical companies
are not really interested in the effects of the medicinal
plants as a whole, but rather in whether they can isolate
a therapeutic substance which can then be manufactured
cheaply and marketed as a new drug - and of course
that's where the money is.

The problem with this approach is, however, that
medicinal plants like Comfrey, Dandelion and other
herbs usually contain hundreds if not thousands of
chemical compounds that interact, yet many of
which are not yet understood and cannot be
manufactured. This is why the manufactured drugs,
based on so-called active ingredients, often do not
work or produce side effects.

Aspirin is a classic case in point. Salicylic acid is the
active ingredient in Aspirin tablets, and was first
isolated from the bark of the White Willow tree. It is
a relatively simple compound to make synthetically,
however, Aspirin is known for its ability to cause
stomach irritation and in some cases ulceration of the
stomach wall.

The herbal extract from the bark of the White Willow
tree generally does not cause stomach irritation due to
other, so called 'non-active ingredients' contained in
the bark, which function to protect the lining of the
stomach thereby preventing ulceration of the stomach
wall.

Ask yourself, which would I choose: Side effects, or
no side effects? It's a very simple answer. Isn't it?

So why then are herbal medicines not used more
commonly and why do we have pharmaceutical
impostors stuffed down our throats? The answer is,
that there's little or no money in herbs for the
pharmaceutical companies. They, the herbs, have
already been invented, they grow easily, they multiply
readily and for the most part, they're freely available.

Further more, correctly prescribed and formulated
herbal compounds generally resolve the health
problem of the patient over a period of time, leaving
no requirement to keep taking the preparation - that
means no repeat sales. No ongoing prescriptions,
no ongoing problem.

Pharmaceuticals on the other hand primarily aim to
relieve symptoms - that means: ongoing consultations,
ongoing sales, ongoing health problems. Which do
you think is a more profitable proposition?

Don't get me wrong, this is not to say that all drugs
are impostors or that none of the pharmaceutical drugs
cure diseases or maladies - they do and some are life-
preserving preparations and are without doubt invaluable.
However, herbal extracts can be similarly effective, but
are not promoted and are highly under-utilized.

The daily news is full of 'discoveries' of herbs found
to be a possible cure of this or that, as in the example
of Dandelion and its possible anti-cancer properties.
The point is that these herbs need to be investigated in
the correct way. They are not just 'an active ingredient'.
They mostly have hundreds of ingredients and taking
one or two in isolation is not what makes medicinal
plants work. In addition, rarely are herbal extracts
prescribed by herbalists as singles (a preparation which
utilizes only one herb). Usually herbalists mix a variety
of medicinal plants to make a mixture, which addresses
more than just the major symptoms.

In Chinese medicine, for example, there is a strict order
of hierarchy in any herbal prescription, which requires
considerable depth of knowledge and experience on the
physician's part. The fact that the primary or principle
herb has active ingredients, which has a specific
physiological effect, does not mean the other herbs
are not necessary in the preparation. This is a fact
seemingly ignored by the pharmaceutical industry in its
need to manufacture new drugs that can control disease.

Knowing that medicinal plants are so effective, that
these plants potentially hold the key to many diseases,
are inexpensive and have proven their worth time and
time again over millennia, why is it that herbal medicine
is still not in the forefront of medical treatments, and
is considered by many orthodox, medical professionals
and pharmaceutical companies as hocus-pocus, hmmm?

http://www.ofspirit.com/dannysiegenthaler1.htm

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
>> > > heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!
>
> And safe!
===========================

I think that should be a sad face, not a happy face, Pearl. :-(
The reason Shevek bought the organic spinach and ate it raw (right after
hearing the news) was because Shevek thought it was (or likely was) the
organic spinach that was contaminated with the E. coli O157:H7 strain. To
find out later on that it wasn't contaminated must have been quite a
disappointment for Shevek. Originally on Fri. Sept. 15 it was reported that
organic spinach "may be to blame for an E. coli outbreak", and it wasn't
until Sunday night that it was reported that the contaminated spinach wasn't
organic, after all.

Article from Friday Sept. 15:

E. coli linked to organic produce company
"ROCKVILLE, Md., Sept. 15 (UPI) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
said Friday that organic spinach from a California produce company may be to
blame for an E. coli outbreak.

At least 96 cases have been reported in 20 states, The New York Times said.
One victim, a 77-year-old woman in Wisconsin, has died.

Natural Selection Foods of San Juan Bautista, Calif., announced a national
recall of pre-bagged spinach and other salad greens in its Earthbound line
as well as ones that it packages for other companies.

The FDA recommended that consumers avoid bagged fresh spinach and seek
medical attention if they experience symptoms of illness after consuming the
produce......" (edited)

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...5-062410-8225r
----------------

Article from Monday Sept. 18:

"...Natural Selection Foods, the country's largest grower of organic
produce, said late Sunday that its organic products had been cleared of
contamination...."

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006...e870082689.txt


>> I recognize the great successes of allopathic medicine. If I were shot
>> up, cut up, bones broken, any of a number of possible accidents, I
>> would certainly try to get some expensive medical treatment. Modern
>> reconstructive surgeries are nothing short of phenomenal. I'd even
>> accept antibiotics for e.g. gangrene.
>
> Think we're on the same page more-or-less, but would
> like to share this..
>
> 'What Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You
> To Know About Herbal Medicine!
> by Danny Siegenthaler
>
> Herbs or medicinal plants have a long history in treating
> disease. In traditional Chinese medicine, for example, the
> written history of herbal medicine goes back over 2000
> years and herbalists in the West have used "weeds"
> equally long to treat that which ails us. We are all familiar
> with the virtues of Garlic, Chamomile, Peppermint,
> Lavender, and other common herbs.
>
> Interest in medicinal herbs is on the rise again and the
> interest is primarily from the pharmaceutical industry,
> which is always looking for 'new drugs' and more
> effective substances to treat diseases, for which there
> may be no or very few drugs available.
>
> Considering the very long traditional use of herbal medicines
> and the large body of evidence of their effectiveness, why is
> it that we are not generally encouraged to use traditional
> herbal medicine, instead of synthetic, incomplete copies of
> herbs, called drugs, considering the millions of dollars
> being spent looking for these seemingly elusive substances?
>
> Herbs are considered treasures when it comes to ancient
> cultures and herbalists, and many so-called weeds are
> worth their weight in gold. Dandelion, Comfrey, Digitalis
> (Foxglove), the Poppy, Milk Thistle, Stinging nettle, and
> many others, have well-researched and established
> medicinal qualities that have few, if any, rivals in the
> pharmaceutical industry. Many of them, in fact, form the
> bases of pharmaceutical drugs.
>
> Research into the medicinal properties of such herbs as
> the humble Dandelion is currently being undertaken by
> scientists at the Royal Botanical Gardens, in Kew, west
> London, who believe it could be the source of a
> life-saving drug for cancer patients.
>
> Early tests suggest that it could hold the key to warding
> off cancer, which kills tens of thousands of people every
> year.
>
> Their work on the cancer-beating properties of the
> dandelion, which also has a history of being used to treat
> warts, is part of a much larger project to examine the
> natural medicinal properties of scores of British plants
> and flowers.
>
> Professor Monique Simmonds, head of the Sustainable
> Uses of Plants Group at Kew, said: "We aren't randomly
> screening plants for their potential medicinal properties,
> we are looking at plants which we know have a long
> history of being used to treat certain medical problems.
>
> "We will be examining them to find out what active
> compounds they contain which can treat the illness."
>
> Unfortunately, as is so often the case, this group of
> scientists appears to be looking for active ingredients,
> which can later be synthesized and then made into
> pharmaceutical drugs. This is not the way herbs are
> used traditionally and their functions inevitably change
> when the active ingredients are used in isolation. That's
> like saying that the only important part of a caris the
> engine - nothing else needs to be included.
>
> So, why is there this need for isolating the 'active
> ingredients'?
>
> As a scientist, I can understand the need for the
> scientific process of establishing the fact that a particular
> herb works on a particular disease, pathogen or what ever,
> and the need to know why and how it does so. But, and
> this is a BIG but, as a doctor of Chinese medicine I also
> understand the process of choosing and prescribing
> COMBINATIONS of herbs, which have a synergistic
> effect to treat not just the disease, but any underlying
> condition as well as the person with the disease. That
> is a big difference and not one that is easily tested
> using standard scientific methodologies.
>
> Using anecdotal evidence, which after all has a history
> of thousands of years, seems to escape my esteemed
> colleagues all together. Rather than trying to isolate the
> active ingredient(s), why not test these herbs, utilizing
> the knowledge of professional herbalists, on patients
> in vivo, using the myriad of technology available to
> researchers and medical diagnosticians to see how
> and why these herbs work in living, breathing patients,
> rather than in a test tube or on laboratory rats and mice
> (which, by the way, are not humans and have a different,
> although some what similar, physiology to us)?
>
> I suspect, that among the reasons for not following the
> above procedure is that the pharmaceutical companies
> are not really interested in the effects of the medicinal
> plants as a whole, but rather in whether they can isolate
> a therapeutic substance which can then be manufactured
> cheaply and marketed as a new drug - and of course
> that's where the money is.
>
> The problem with this approach is, however, that
> medicinal plants like Comfrey, Dandelion and other
> herbs usually contain hundreds if not thousands of
> chemical compounds that interact, yet many of
> which are not yet understood and cannot be
> manufactured. This is why the manufactured drugs,
> based on so-called active ingredients, often do not
> work or produce side effects.
>
> Aspirin is a classic case in point. Salicylic acid is the
> active ingredient in Aspirin tablets, and was first
> isolated from the bark of the White Willow tree. It is
> a relatively simple compound to make synthetically,
> however, Aspirin is known for its ability to cause
> stomach irritation and in some cases ulceration of the
> stomach wall.
>
> The herbal extract from the bark of the White Willow
> tree generally does not cause stomach irritation due to
> other, so called 'non-active ingredients' contained in
> the bark, which function to protect the lining of the
> stomach thereby preventing ulceration of the stomach
> wall.
>
> Ask yourself, which would I choose: Side effects, or
> no side effects? It's a very simple answer. Isn't it?
>
> So why then are herbal medicines not used more
> commonly and why do we have pharmaceutical
> impostors stuffed down our throats? The answer is,
> that there's little or no money in herbs for the
> pharmaceutical companies. They, the herbs, have
> already been invented, they grow easily, they multiply
> readily and for the most part, they're freely available.
>
> Further more, correctly prescribed and formulated
> herbal compounds generally resolve the health
> problem of the patient over a period of time, leaving
> no requirement to keep taking the preparation - that
> means no repeat sales. No ongoing prescriptions,
> no ongoing problem.
>
> Pharmaceuticals on the other hand primarily aim to
> relieve symptoms - that means: ongoing consultations,
> ongoing sales, ongoing health problems. Which do
> you think is a more profitable proposition?
>
> Don't get me wrong, this is not to say that all drugs
> are impostors or that none of the pharmaceutical drugs
> cure diseases or maladies - they do and some are life-
> preserving preparations and are without doubt invaluable.
> However, herbal extracts can be similarly effective, but
> are not promoted and are highly under-utilized.
>
> The daily news is full of 'discoveries' of herbs found
> to be a possible cure of this or that, as in the example
> of Dandelion and its possible anti-cancer properties.
> The point is that these herbs need to be investigated in
> the correct way. They are not just 'an active ingredient'.
> They mostly have hundreds of ingredients and taking
> one or two in isolation is not what makes medicinal
> plants work. In addition, rarely are herbal extracts
> prescribed by herbalists as singles (a preparation which
> utilizes only one herb). Usually herbalists mix a variety
> of medicinal plants to make a mixture, which addresses
> more than just the major symptoms.
>
> In Chinese medicine, for example, there is a strict order
> of hierarchy in any herbal prescription, which requires
> considerable depth of knowledge and experience on the
> physician's part. The fact that the primary or principle
> herb has active ingredients, which has a specific
> physiological effect, does not mean the other herbs
> are not necessary in the preparation. This is a fact
> seemingly ignored by the pharmaceutical industry in its
> need to manufacture new drugs that can control disease.
>
> Knowing that medicinal plants are so effective, that
> these plants potentially hold the key to many diseases,
> are inexpensive and have proven their worth time and
> time again over millennia, why is it that herbal medicine
> is still not in the forefront of medical treatments, and
> is considered by many orthodox, medical professionals
> and pharmaceutical companies as hocus-pocus, hmmm?
>
> http://www.ofspirit.com/dannysiegenthaler1.htm
>
>

pearl wrote:

>
> NON-organic spinach at center of outbreak..

Is organic spinach less safe because it might be fertilized with manure?

"You can get E. coli contamination with organic products," Dr. David
Acheson, director of Food Safety and Security at the FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said during a teleconference
Wednesday. "AT THIS POINT WE HAVE NOT RULED IN OR OUT ORGANIC
SPINACH. We're not at the point of saying it's one or the other."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health...spinach21.html

> 'Natural Selection has recalled 34 brands of fresh spinach products,
> distributed throughout the United States as well as to Canada and
> Mexico. The company said

....one thing, the FDA says another.

"frant" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> chico chupacabra wrote:
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
> >> > > heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!
> >
> > And safe!
> ===========================
>
> I think that should be a sad face, not a happy face, Pearl. :-(

Sad that anyone's sick, but happy that it's not organic and that shevek's safe.

> The reason Shevek bought the organic spinach and ate it raw (right after
> hearing the news) was because Shevek thought it was (or likely was) the
> organic spinach that was contaminated with the E. coli O157:H7 strain.

Don't be silly. Shevek was just taking the goat-sucker for a stroll.

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> >
> > NON-organic spinach at center of outbreak..
>
> Is organic spinach less safe

No.

pearl wrote:
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> > pearl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > NON-organic spinach at center of outbreak..
> >
> > Is organic spinach less safe
>
> No.

Cheeky Chumpo was really really hoping to put down organics.

"The tainted greens -- conventionally grown spinach and not organic --
came from one of the farms that supplies spinach to Natural
Selection, said Samantha Cabaluna, spokeswoman for Natural Selection."

Skanky woke up before noon (wow!) and wrote:

> "The tainted greens -- conventionally grown spinach and not organic --
> came from one of the farms that supplies spinach to Natural
> Selection, said Samantha Cabaluna, spokeswoman for Natural Selection."

The company says one thing, FDA says another...

"You can get E. coli contamination with organic products," Dr. David
Acheson, director of Food Safety and Security at the FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said during a teleconference
Wednesday. "AT THIS POINT WE HAVE NOT RULED IN OR OUT ORGANIC
SPINACH. We're not at the point of saying it's one or the other."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health...spinach21.html

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
> > > > heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!
>
> And safe!
>
> > I recognize the great successes of allopathic medicine. If I were shot
> > up, cut up, bones broken, any of a number of possible accidents, I
> > would certainly try to get some expensive medical treatment. Modern
> > reconstructive surgeries are nothing short of phenomenal. I'd even
> > accept antibiotics for e.g. gangrene.
>
> Think we're on the same page more-or-less, but would
> like to share this..
>

Thanks Pearl.

> 'What Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You
> To Know About Herbal Medicine!
> by Danny Siegenthaler
>
> Herbs or medicinal plants have a long history in treating
> disease. In traditional Chinese medicine, for example, the
> written history of herbal medicine goes back over 2000
> years and herbalists in the West have used "weeds"
> equally long to treat that which ails us. We are all familiar
> with the virtues of Garlic, Chamomile, Peppermint,
> Lavender, and other common herbs.
>
> Interest in medicinal herbs is on the rise again and the
> interest is primarily from the pharmaceutical industry,
> which is always looking for 'new drugs' and more
> effective substances to treat diseases, for which there
> may be no or very few drugs available.
>
> Considering the very long traditional use of herbal medicines
> and the large body of evidence of their effectiveness, why is
> it that we are not generally encouraged to use traditional
> herbal medicine, instead of synthetic, incomplete copies of
> herbs, called drugs, considering the millions of dollars
> being spent looking for these seemingly elusive substances?
>
> Herbs are considered treasures when it comes to ancient
> cultures and herbalists, and many so-called weeds are
> worth their weight in gold. Dandelion, Comfrey, Digitalis
> (Foxglove), the Poppy, Milk Thistle, Stinging nettle, and
> many others, have well-researched and established
> medicinal qualities that have few, if any, rivals in the
> pharmaceutical industry. Many of them, in fact, form the
> bases of pharmaceutical drugs.

I can think of a few ancient medicinal weeds that are worth their
weight in gold, but those weren't the names I had in mind..

>
> Research into the medicinal properties of such herbs as
> the humble Dandelion is currently being undertaken by
> scientists at the Royal Botanical Gardens, in Kew, west
> London, who believe it could be the source of a
> life-saving drug for cancer patients.
>
> Early tests suggest that it could hold the key to warding
> off cancer, which kills tens of thousands of people every
> year.
>
> Their work on the cancer-beating properties of the
> dandelion, which also has a history of being used to treat
> warts, is part of a much larger project to examine the
> natural medicinal properties of scores of British plants
> and flowers.
>
> Professor Monique Simmonds, head of the Sustainable
> Uses of Plants Group at Kew, said: "We aren't randomly
> screening plants for their potential medicinal properties,
> we are looking at plants which we know have a long
> history of being used to treat certain medical problems.
>
> "We will be examining them to find out what active
> compounds they contain which can treat the illness."
>
> Unfortunately, as is so often the case, this group of
> scientists appears to be looking for active ingredients,
> which can later be synthesized and then made into
> pharmaceutical drugs. This is not the way herbs are
> used traditionally and their functions inevitably change
> when the active ingredients are used in isolation. That's
> like saying that the only important part of a caris the
> engine - nothing else needs to be included.
>
> So, why is there this need for isolating the 'active
> ingredients'?
>
> As a scientist, I can understand the need for the
> scientific process of establishing the fact that a particular
> herb works on a particular disease, pathogen or what ever,
> and the need to know why and how it does so. But, and
> this is a BIG but, as a doctor of Chinese medicine I also
> understand the process of choosing and prescribing
> COMBINATIONS of herbs, which have a synergistic
> effect to treat not just the disease, but any underlying
> condition as well as the person with the disease. That
> is a big difference and not one that is easily tested
> using standard scientific methodologies.
>
> Using anecdotal evidence, which after all has a history
> of thousands of years, seems to escape my esteemed
> colleagues all together. Rather than trying to isolate the
> active ingredient(s), why not test these herbs, utilizing
> the knowledge of professional herbalists, on patients
> in vivo, using the myriad of technology available to
> researchers and medical diagnosticians to see how
> and why these herbs work in living, breathing patients,
> rather than in a test tube or on laboratory rats and mice
> (which, by the way, are not humans and have a different,
> although some what similar, physiology to us)?
>
> I suspect, that among the reasons for not following the
> above procedure is that the pharmaceutical companies
> are not really interested in the effects of the medicinal
> plants as a whole, but rather in whether they can isolate
> a therapeutic substance which can then be manufactured
> cheaply and marketed as a new drug - and of course
> that's where the money is.
>
> The problem with this approach is, however, that
> medicinal plants like Comfrey, Dandelion and other
> herbs usually contain hundreds if not thousands of
> chemical compounds that interact, yet many of
> which are not yet understood and cannot be
> manufactured. This is why the manufactured drugs,
> based on so-called active ingredients, often do not
> work or produce side effects.
>
> Aspirin is a classic case in point. Salicylic acid is the
> active ingredient in Aspirin tablets, and was first
> isolated from the bark of the White Willow tree. It is
> a relatively simple compound to make synthetically,
> however, Aspirin is known for its ability to cause
> stomach irritation and in some cases ulceration of the
> stomach wall.
>
> The herbal extract from the bark of the White Willow
> tree generally does not cause stomach irritation due to
> other, so called 'non-active ingredients' contained in
> the bark, which function to protect the lining of the
> stomach thereby preventing ulceration of the stomach
> wall.
>
> Ask yourself, which would I choose: Side effects, or
> no side effects? It's a very simple answer. Isn't it?

Not always. Sometimes isolating the compounds that you are interested
in can eliminate side effects. You probably want ethanol, rather than
a mix including methanol, for example.

>
> So why then are herbal medicines not used more
> commonly and why do we have pharmaceutical
> impostors stuffed down our throats? The answer is,
> that there's little or no money in herbs for the
> pharmaceutical companies. They, the herbs, have
> already been invented, they grow easily, they multiply
> readily and for the most part, they're freely available.
>
> Further more, correctly prescribed and formulated
> herbal compounds generally resolve the health
> problem of the patient over a period of time, leaving
> no requirement to keep taking the preparation - that
> means no repeat sales. No ongoing prescriptions,
> no ongoing problem.
>
> Pharmaceuticals on the other hand primarily aim to
> relieve symptoms - that means: ongoing consultations,
> ongoing sales, ongoing health problems. Which do
> you think is a more profitable proposition?
>
> Don't get me wrong, this is not to say that all drugs
> are impostors or that none of the pharmaceutical drugs
> cure diseases or maladies - they do and some are life-
> preserving preparations and are without doubt invaluable.
> However, herbal extracts can be similarly effective, but
> are not promoted and are highly under-utilized.
>
> The daily news is full of 'discoveries' of herbs found
> to be a possible cure of this or that, as in the example
> of Dandelion and its possible anti-cancer properties.
> The point is that these herbs need to be investigated in
> the correct way. They are not just 'an active ingredient'.
> They mostly have hundreds of ingredients and taking
> one or two in isolation is not what makes medicinal
> plants work. In addition, rarely are herbal extracts
> prescribed by herbalists as singles (a preparation which
> utilizes only one herb). Usually herbalists mix a variety
> of medicinal plants to make a mixture, which addresses
> more than just the major symptoms.
>
> In Chinese medicine, for example, there is a strict order
> of hierarchy in any herbal prescription, which requires
> considerable depth of knowledge and experience on the
> physician's part. The fact that the primary or principle
> herb has active ingredients, which has a specific
> physiological effect, does not mean the other herbs
> are not necessary in the preparation. This is a fact
> seemingly ignored by the pharmaceutical industry in its
> need to manufacture new drugs that can control disease.
>
> Knowing that medicinal plants are so effective, that
> these plants potentially hold the key to many diseases,
> are inexpensive and have proven their worth time and
> time again over millennia, why is it that herbal medicine
> is still not in the forefront of medical treatments, and
> is considered by many orthodox, medical professionals
> and pharmaceutical companies as hocus-pocus, hmmm?
>
> http://www.ofspirit.com/dannysiegenthaler1.htm
>

I think part of the problem is that it's difficult to be precise with
dosages - because each plant has varying concentrations of the "active
ingredients". However, that same problem stays a problem even with
precisely measured pure compounds, because the patients also vary in
the effects. Nice computer-labelled plastic pillboxes look very
precise, but aren't necessarily.

Surely off topic here but that's OK.

Part of the problem is simply education. Some people don't even know
of the medicinal properties of garlic, and they aren't going to learn
by watching pharmaceutical ads on TV, and a healthcare culture that
insists - never think for yourself. Consult your healthcare
professional. Another problem is this vestige of the monarchy system
that we still have hanging around, known as "intellectual property
law". But now I'm too far off topic, sorry.

cheers - shevek

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "frant" > wrote in message ...
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> chico chupacabra wrote:
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after I
>> >> > > heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!
>> >
>> > And safe!
>> ===========================
>>
>> I think that should be a sad face, not a happy face, Pearl. :-(
>
> Sad that anyone's sick, but happy that it's not organic and that shevek's
> safe.
>
>> The reason Shevek bought the organic spinach and ate it raw (right after
>> hearing the news) was because Shevek thought it was (or likely was) the
>> organic spinach that was contaminated with the E. coli O157:H7 strain.
>
> Don't be silly. Shevek was just taking the goat-sucker for a stroll.
===================================

I'm not so sure about that.... In responding to my earlier message, Shevek
posted a fictional "in related news" story whose purpose was to suggest that
the FDA E. coli O157:H7 contaminated spinach warning / recall was a big
overblown waste of time. Additionally, Shevek sarcastically stated "OMG!
One person died! Run for the hills!". Those, in conjunction with the
statements "I for one went out and brought some organic spinach right after
I heard the news, and ate it right out of the bag. Tasty!" lead me to
believe that Shevek thinks the spinach E. coli O157:H7 outbreak is more a
reason to go out and buy and eat the potentially contaminated spinach,
rather than avoid it. But that's just my impression....

lagging behind by at least two days "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
...

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "The tainted greens -- conventionally grown spinach and not organic --
> > came from one of the farms that supplies spinach to Natural
> > Selection, said Samantha Cabaluna, spokeswoman for Natural Selection."

Thanks for the update, SN. quacko's that desperate to diss organic, he's
resorted to posting news items from days ago when there was still doubt..

> The company says one thing, FDA says another...
>
> "You can get E. coli contamination with organic products," Dr. David
> Acheson, director of Food Safety and Security at the FDA's Center for
> Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said during a teleconference
> ******Wednesday******.
> "AT THIS POINT WE HAVE NOT RULED IN OR OUT ORGANIC
> SPINACH. We're not at the point of saying it's one or the other."
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health...spinach21.html
<*.. my emphasis added>

The following article speaks of what we have suspected (and
the author is clearly not an animal rights or vegetarian activist).

"There remains only one long-term remedy, and it's still the simplest
one: stop feeding grain to cattle." ..and cattle to people.. Go Vegan!

September 22, 2006 by the New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com>
Leafy Green Sewage
by Nina Planck
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0922-26.htm

Farmers and food safety officials still have much to figure out about
the recent spate of E. coli infections linked to raw spinach. So far, no
particular stomachache has been traced to any particular farm irrigated
by any particular river.

There is also no evidence so far that Natural Selection Foods, the huge
shipper implicated in the outbreak that packages salad greens under more
than two dozen brands, including Earthbound Farm, O Organic and the
Farmer's Market, failed to use proper handling methods.

Indeed, this epidemic, which has infected more than 100 people and
resulted in at least one death, probably has little do with the folks
who grow and package your greens. The detective trail ultimately leads
back to a seemingly unrelated food industry --- beef and dairy cattle.

First, some basic facts about this usually harmless bacterium: E. coli
is abundant in the digestive systems of healthy cattle and humans, and
if your potato salad happened to be carrying the average E. coli, the
acid in your gut is usually enough to kill it.

But the villain in this outbreak, E. coli O157:H7, is far scarier, at
least for humans. Your stomach juices are not strong enough to kill this
acid-loving bacterium, which is why it's more likely than other members
of the E. coli family to produce abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever and,
in rare cases, fatal kidney failure.

Where does this particularly virulent strain come from? It's not found
in the intestinal tracts of cattle raised on their natural diet of
grass, hay and other fibrous forage. No, O157 thrives in a new --- that
is, recent in the history of animal diets --- biological niche: the
unnaturally acidic stomachs of beef and dairy cattle fed on grain, the
typical ration on most industrial farms. It's the infected manure from
these grain-fed cattle that contaminates the groundwater and spreads the
bacteria to produce, like spinach, growing on neighboring farms.

In 2003, The Journal of Dairy Science noted that up to 80 percent of
dairy cattle carry O157. (Fortunately, food safety measures prevent
contaminated fecal matter from getting into most of our food most of the
time.) Happily, the journal also provided a remedy based on a simple
experiment. When cows were switched from a grain diet to hay for only
five days, O157 declined 1,000-fold.

This is good news. In a week, we could choke O157 from its favorite home
--- even if beef cattle were switched to a forage diet just seven days
before slaughter, it would greatly reduce cross-contamination by manure
of, say, hamburger in meat-packing plants. Such a measure might have
prevented the E. coli outbreak that plagued the Jack in the Box fast
food chain in 1993.

Unfortunately, it would take more than a week to reduce the
contamination of ground water, flood water and rivers --- all irrigation
sources on spinach farms --- by the E-coli-infected manure from cattle
farms.

The United States Department of Agriculture does recognize the threat
from these huge lagoons of waste, and so pays 75 percent of the cost for
a confinement cattle farmer to make manure pits watertight, either by
lining them with concrete or building them above ground. But taxpayers
are financing a policy that only treats the symptom, not the disease,
and at great expense. There remains only one long-term remedy, and it's
still the simplest one: stop feeding grain to cattle.

California's spinach industry is now the financial victim of an outbreak
it probably did not cause, and meanwhile, thousands of acres of other
produce are still downstream from these lakes of E. coli-ridden cattle
manure. So give the spinach growers a break, and direct your attention
to the people in our agricultural community who just might be able to
solve this deadly problem: the beef and dairy farmers.

Copyright 2006 New York Times Company

###


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

shamelessly shilling for distributors of tainted spinach, crazed
psycho bitch Lesley parroted the corporate line:

> > > "The tainted greens -- conventionally grown spinach and not
> > > organic -- came from one of the farms that supplies spinach to
> > > Natural Selection, said Samantha Cabaluna, spokeswoman for Natural
> > > Selection."
>
> Thanks for the update, SN. quacko's that desperate to diss organic,

I'm honestly reporting the news. The company says one thing, the FDA
says another:

NPR - All Things Considered, September 18, 2006 -- The California
produce company that's been linked to a widening nationwide E. coli
outbreak is at odds with the Food and Drug Administration over what's
causing the illness. Natural Selection Foods said Monday that its
organic spinach has been cleared as the source of outbreak. But
government health inspectors disputed the company's claim and said
nothing has been ruled out.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6098858

> he's resorted to posting news items from days ago when there was still
> doubt..

There still *is* doubt, dummy.

<snip BS>

Lesley lied:

> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> >
> > > "The tainted greens -- conventionally grown spinach and not
> > > organic -- came from one of the farms that supplies spinach to
> > > Natural Selection, said Samantha Cabaluna, spokeswoman for Natural
> > > Selection."
>
> Thanks for the update, SN. quacko's that desperate to diss organic,
> he's resorted to posting news items from days ago when there was still
> doubt..

Here's the press release from Natural Selection (too Darwinian for my
taste) Foods that you're hanging your tinfoil hat on:

Based on the preliminary information available in this on-going
investigation, we have been advised by the US Food & Drug Administration
and the California Department of Health Services that no organic
products, including Earthbound Farm brand spinach or other products,
have been linked to this outbreak *at this time* [THEIR emphasis]. This
does not mean that organic products have been cleared.
http://www.ebfarm.com/press/SpinachUpdates/

The organics industry makes many claims -- many of which simply do NOT
stand up to scrutiny -- about their products. The following information
is from a press release issued this past week. It addresses the subject
of organic food safety in light of the recent outbreak of illness
related to spinach.

Following it is an article about E coli in (rather than on) leafy
produce, and discusses implications related to organic farming. It also
notes one of the problems with ascertaining whether food is organic or
not -- there is no actual enforcement of regulations "required" for
organic certification.

It's time for the organic industry to play by the same rules everyone
else does.

================================================== =========
1. Organic farming practices are not safer and may, in fact, be less
safe than non-organic farming practices.

-- A University of Minnesota study published in the Journal of Food
Protection in 2004 concluded that organic produce was six times more
likely to be contaminated with E. coli. Salmonella was found on organic
lettuce and organic green peppers, but not on any conventional produce.
According to the researchers, the "prevalence of E. coli on certified
organic produce" was "almost threefold higher than that on
conventional", but because of the comparatively smaller conventional
food sample size, this difference could not be considered "statistically
significant". Yet of the total of 15 farms that had E. coli-positive
samples, 13 were organic and only two were conventional. (Mukherjee, A,
et al. J of Food Prot 67(5):894-900, 2004)

-- The most frequently contaminated product found in the Minnesota study
was organic lettuce, with roughly one quarter of organic lettuce samples
contaminated by E. coli. The levels of E. coli on organic lettuce and
leafy greens was also higher than found on conventional samples.

-- Importantly, the research determined that fruits and vegetables were
19 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli if the manure was
composted 6 to 12 months compared to produce fertilized with manure aged
more than one year. Current organic manure handling regulations allow
application of manure that has been composted for as little as three
days right up to harvest time.

-- Some have suggested that manure use is "highly regulated" on organic
farms but is not regulated on non-organic farms. This is incorrect.
Every state has regulations against the use of raw (uncomposted) manure
on crops consumed raw. However, all use of manure and manure-based
compost by organic and non-organic farmers needs to be reexamined in
light of the findings in the Minnesota study and applied to all.

Fortunately, this is essentially the point of "The Lettuce Safety
Initiative" that has now been expanded to include spinach. This is a
sound policy reaction to this and other E. coli contamination episodes
of the past decade, including a multi-state outbreak from organic
lettuce that sickened many in Connecticut and Illinois in June of 1996.

2. None of the organic brands from Natural Selections Foods LLC have
been cleared of possible contamination by the FDA.

-- While Natural Selections Foods LLC has claimed that "manufacturing
codes" from packaging retained by patients are all from non-organic
spinach, this is totally inadequate information. The FDA and state
authorities have package/UPC codes for a relatively small number of
victims identified so far.

-- Why was Natural Selections posting reassuring (and conflicting)
messages about the apparent safety of its organic products on its
website only three days into a growing foodborne-illness outbreak for
which no products had been cleared and the source of the contamination
had yet to be identified?

3. Is E. coli O157:H7 a by-product of grain-based feeding or other
"industrial" farming practices? No.

-- Studies have found E. coli O157:H7 in every single cattle herd tested
by USDA researchers, including cattle raised on open pastures at low
densities in remote areas. Genetic evidence indicates the O157:H7 strain
arose thousands of years ago. Studies are conflicting as to whether
grain-based feed increases the prevalence and shedding of O157:H7
strains of E. coli compared to grass feeding. Some have found higher
rates with grass and hay feeding, others with grain.

4. This outbreak is due to practices used in organic farming While some
outbreaks in the past have been thought to have occurred due to cross
contamination during rinsing, current regulations ? if followed ? have
been designed to address this hazard.

-- Ironically, the Minnesota research indicates that larger, certified
operations are considerably less prone to bacterial contamination than
smaller, more independent uncertified operations. E. coli contamination
rates were roughly twice as high on un-certified organic farms compared
to certified farms.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/9/prweb440537.htm

============================
If the E. coli pathogen is found to be inside the plant leaves, that
might have serious implications for the burgeoning organic foods market.

Scientists at Rutgers University reported four years ago that they had
shown that quantities of the bacteria sufficient to cause disease can be
present in - rather than on - the plants' leaves.

"I am concerned from the findings that we have," said Karl Matthews, a
microbiologist. "You can't wash the organism away from the crop. Even if
it's washed several times, you're not actually washing away the
organism."

After growing lettuce in soil that had been deliberately inoculated with
E. coli O157:H7, Matthews washed the leaves in bleach but still found
the bacteria inside the plant tissues.

He and other researchers concluded that the pathogen had clearly
traveled to edible parts of the lettuce through the roots.

He said the research was not designed to determine how much
contamination could have occurred, but whether it could happen at all.
Even so, he said, in some cases the amount of E. coli found in the
leaves was sufficient to cause disease....

No one has shown that organically produced vegetables are likely to be
more vulnerable to this form of contamination than conventionally grown
crops.

However, organic crops are nourished not with chemical fertilizer but
with material that contains animal manure, usually the source of E.
coli.

Federal regulations adopted for organic foods prohibit application of
raw animal manure to crops within 120 days of harvest if the edible
portion comes into contact with the manure. Raw manure is not allowed
within 90 days of harvest of any food crop.

However, these regulations determine only whether a farmer qualifies for
the Department of Agriculture "organic food," seal and are not enforced
by food safety officials. Instead, private organizations approved by the
department visit farms and "certify" them for the seal.

A California company that has been at the center of an outbreak of E.
coli poisoning in raw spinach produces an organic line of fresh
vegetables.

http://www.oxfordpress.com/business/...COX_W1535.html

> Based on the preliminary information available in this on-going
> investigation, we have been advised by the US Food & Drug Administration
> and the California Department of Health Services that no organic
> products, including Earthbound Farm brand spinach or other products,
> have been linked to this outbreak *at this time* [THEIR emphasis]. This
> does not mean that organic products have been cleared.
> http://www.ebfarm.com/press/SpinachUpdates/

'Natural Selection has recalled 34 brands of fresh spinach products,
distributed throughout the United States as well as to Canada and
Mexico. The company said the manufacturing codes turned over to
health officials from packages of spinach that had infected patients
all were from non-organic spinach. The company packages both
organic and conventionally grown spinach in separate areas at its
San Juan Bautista, Calif., plant.'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ch-ecoli_x.htm

loony Lesley continued to shill for tainted produce suppliers:

> > Based on the preliminary information available in this on-going
> > investigation, we have been advised by the US Food & Drug
> > Administration and the California Department of Health Services that
> > no organic products, including Earthbound Farm brand spinach or
> > other products, have been linked to this outbreak *at this time*
> > [THEIR emphasis]. This does not mean that organic products have been
> > cleared. http://www.ebfarm.com/press/SpinachUpdates/
>
> 'Natural Selection has recalled 34 brands of fresh spinach products,

Both organic and conventional. Neither has been cleared of E coli
tainting yet:

NPR - All Things Considered, September 18, 2006 -- The California
produce company that's been linked to a widening nationwide E. coli
outbreak is at odds with the Food and Drug Administration over what's
causing the illness. Natural Selection Foods said Monday that its
organic spinach has been cleared as the source of outbreak. But
government health inspectors disputed the company's claim and said
nothing has been ruled out.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6098858

What part of "Government health inspectors disputed the company's claim
and said nothing has been ruled out" do you not comprehend, you daft
tinfoil hat-wearing ****?

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> continued to shill for tainted produce suppliers:
>
> > > Based on the preliminary information available in this on-going
> > > investigation, we have been advised by the US Food & Drug
> > > Administration and the California Department of Health Services that
> > > no organic products, including Earthbound Farm brand spinach or
> > > other products, have been linked to this outbreak *at this time*
> > > [THEIR emphasis]. This does not mean that organic products have been
> > > cleared. http://www.ebfarm.com/press/SpinachUpdates/
> >
> > 'Natural Selection has recalled 34 brands of fresh spinach products,
>
> Both organic and conventional. Neither has been cleared of E coli
> tainting yet:

ALL of the manufacturing codes from packages that infected people
have so far been from NON-organic spinach. Subject line corrected.

'Natural Selection has recalled 34 brands of fresh spinach products,
distributed throughout the United States as well as to Canada and
Mexico. The company said the manufacturing codes turned over to
health officials from packages of spinach that had infected patients
all were from non-organic spinach. The company packages both
organic and conventionally grown spinach in separate areas at its
San Juan Bautista, Calif., plant.'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ch-ecoli_x.htm

crazy psycho bitch Lesley lied:

> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> ...
> > continued to shill for tainted produce suppliers:
> >
> > > > Based on the preliminary information available in this on-going
> > > > investigation, we have been advised by the US Food & Drug
> > > > Administration and the California Department of Health Services
> > > > that no organic products, including Earthbound Farm brand
> > > > spinach or other products, have been linked to this outbreak *at
> > > > this time* [THEIR emphasis]. This does not mean that organic
> > > > products have been cleared.
> > > > http://www.ebfarm.com/press/SpinachUpdates/
> > >
> > > 'Natural Selection has recalled 34 brands of fresh spinach
> > > products,
> >
> > Both organic and conventional. Neither has been cleared of E coli
> > tainting yet:
>
> ALL of the manufacturing codes

This does not mean that organic products have been cleared.
-- Natural Selection/Earthbound Farms press release

"You can get E. coli contamination with organic products," Dr. David
Acheson, director of Food Safety and Security at the FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said during a teleconference
Wednesday. "AT THIS POINT WE HAVE NOT RULED IN OR OUT ORGANIC
SPINACH. We're not at the point of saying it's one or the other."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health...spinach21.html

Lesley is a lying retard. QED.

chiclet wrote:
> Here's the press release from Natural Selection (too Darwinian for my
> taste) Foods that you're hanging your tinfoil hat on:

LOL Are you a creationist Cheeky?

Skanky, who woke up early (it's not even 1pm in Toronto), wrote:

> chico wrote:
> > Here's the press release from Natural Selection (too Darwinian for
> > my taste) Foods that you're hanging your tinfoil hat on:
>
> LOL Are you a creationist Cheeky?

no

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> The organics industry makes many claims -- many of which simply do NOT
> stand up to scrutiny -- about their products. The following information
> is from a press release issued this past week. It addresses the subject
> of organic food safety in light of the recent outbreak of illness
> related to spinach.
>
> Following it is an article about E coli in (rather than on) leafy
> produce, and discusses implications related to organic farming. It also
> notes one of the problems with ascertaining whether food is organic or
> not -- there is no actual enforcement of regulations "required" for
> organic certification.
>
> It's time for the organic industry to play by the same rules everyone
> else does.
>
> ================================================== =========
> 1. Organic farming practices are not safer and may, in fact, be less
> safe than non-organic farming practices.
>
> -- A University of Minnesota study published in the Journal of Food
> Protection in 2004 concluded that organic produce was six times more
> likely to be contaminated with E. coli. Salmonella was found on organic
> lettuce and organic green peppers, but not on any conventional produce.
> According to the researchers, the "prevalence of E. coli on certified
> organic produce" was "almost threefold higher than that on
> conventional", but because of the comparatively smaller conventional
> food sample size, this difference could not be considered "statistically
> significant". Yet of the total of 15 farms that had E. coli-positive
> samples, 13 were organic and only two were conventional. (Mukherjee, A,
> et al. J of Food Prot 67(5):894-900, 2004)
>
> -- The most frequently contaminated product found in the Minnesota study
> was organic lettuce, with roughly one quarter of organic lettuce samples
> contaminated by E. coli. The levels of E. coli on organic lettuce and
> leafy greens was also higher than found on conventional samples.
>
> -- Importantly, the research determined that fruits and vegetables were
> 19 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli if the manure was
> composted 6 to 12 months compared to produce fertilized with manure aged
> more than one year. Current organic manure handling regulations allow
> application of manure that has been composted for as little as three
> days right up to harvest time.
>
> -- Some have suggested that manure use is "highly regulated" on organic
> farms but is not regulated on non-organic farms. This is incorrect.
> Every state has regulations against the use of raw (uncomposted) manure
> on crops consumed raw. However, all use of manure and manure-based
> compost by organic and non-organic farmers needs to be reexamined in
> light of the findings in the Minnesota study and applied to all.
>
> Fortunately, this is essentially the point of "The Lettuce Safety
> Initiative" that has now been expanded to include spinach. This is a
> sound policy reaction to this and other E. coli contamination episodes
> of the past decade, including a multi-state outbreak from organic
> lettuce that sickened many in Connecticut and Illinois in June of 1996.
>
> 2. None of the organic brands from Natural Selections Foods LLC have
> been cleared of possible contamination by the FDA.
>
> -- While Natural Selections Foods LLC has claimed that "manufacturing
> codes" from packaging retained by patients are all from non-organic
> spinach, this is totally inadequate information. The FDA and state
> authorities have package/UPC codes for a relatively small number of
> victims identified so far.
>
> -- Why was Natural Selections posting reassuring (and conflicting)
> messages about the apparent safety of its organic products on its
> website only three days into a growing foodborne-illness outbreak for
> which no products had been cleared and the source of the contamination
> had yet to be identified?
>
> 3. Is E. coli O157:H7 a by-product of grain-based feeding or other
> "industrial" farming practices? No.
>
> -- Studies have found E. coli O157:H7 in every single cattle herd tested
> by USDA researchers, including cattle raised on open pastures at low
> densities in remote areas. Genetic evidence indicates the O157:H7 strain
> arose thousands of years ago. Studies are conflicting as to whether
> grain-based feed increases the prevalence and shedding of O157:H7
> strains of E. coli compared to grass feeding. Some have found higher
> rates with grass and hay feeding, others with grain.
>
> 4. This outbreak is due to practices used in organic farming

'Avery sees no problem with agricultural pollution, be it groundwater
contamination, pesticide and fertilizer runoff, or even the mountains
of stinking manure produced by the huge cattle, chicken and hog
operations that plague increasing numbers of rural communities. He
denies that there is any link between pesticides and cancer or other
illnesses. In fact, he says, organic food is what will kill you.'
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html

'Investigators are focusing on nine farms in the Salinas Valley,
looking for signs of past flooding or instances in which
contaminated surface areas had come into contact with crops.
They also were looking for potential sources of bacteria inside
packing plants.
....
According to the CDC, E. coli lives in the intestines of cattle
and other animals and is linked to contamination by fecal
material. It can be found in undercooked meats and other foods,
such as spinach, sprouts, lettuce, unpasteurized milk and juice.
...'
http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/hea...out535066.html

> While some
> outbreaks in the past have been thought to have occurred due to cross
> contamination during rinsing, current regulations ? if followed ? have
> been designed to address this hazard.
>
> -- Ironically, the Minnesota research indicates that larger, certified
> operations are considerably less prone to bacterial contamination than
> smaller, more independent uncertified operations. E. coli contamination
> rates were roughly twice as high on un-certified organic farms compared
> to certified farms.

'Unless otherwise identified, all discussion points can be attributed to
the Center for Global Food Issues' director of research and education,
Alex Avery.'

> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/9/prweb440537.htm

"They told me I should have known better than to look for
E. coli 0157:H7, because we wouldn't find any."

'Anti-Organic Lobby Tries to Distort Study Showing Safety of Organic Food
From: Cornucopia Institute

6/15/04
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Study Confirms Safety of Organic Food
But Agrichemical Front Group Attempts to Twist Findings

The same right-wing think tank that conspired with John Stossel of ABC News,
in an erroneous attempt to discredit organic food (subsequently forcing an
apology from the network), is at it again. The Hudson Institute, and its
father and son team of Dennis and Alex Avery, are attempting to spin a new
report that actually concluded there was no "statistically different" risk
in the pathogenic contamination of organic food verses its conventionally
produced counterparts.

"For years, the Averys' have been banging the drum trying to suggest to
consumers that organic food is somehow dangerous," said Mark Kastel,
Director of the Organic Integrity Project at The Cornucopia Institute. "In
this case, the study * or any study * is evidently enough ammunition for
them to begin their indiscriminate potshots."

The report in question, published in the May issue of Journal of Food
Protection, looked at produce grown on conventional and organic Minnesota
farms during 2002. Less than 5 percent of the produce from conventional and
organic farms showed contamination with any of the tracked pathogens in
question, and that was before washing at the wholesale level, peeling off
outer leaves, or a thorough washing once the produce arrives in the home of
the ultimate consumer.

"This study was primarily designed to look at the use of composted manure
verses chemical fertilizers at the farm level. The authors of this report
intentionally did not concern themselves with what happened once the produce
was washed and left the farm," Kastel said.

According to Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, the report's chief author and faculty
member at the University of Minnesota, "I had a very heated discussion with
Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute. They were very dissatisfied with our
findings and told me that our interpretations were not 'correct.' They told
me I should have known better than to look for E. coli 0157:H7, because we
wouldn't find any."

Dr. Diez-Gonzalez is not surprised to learn that the Hudson Institute, with
its long record and the backing of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and
DuPont, is now trying to use the independently funded, University of
Minnesota data to discredit organic farming.

Commenting on the Diez-Gonzalez study, Alex Avery called eating organic
food "a crap shoot" and warned that potential cases of diarrhea, typhoid
fever and Reiter's Syndrome await its consumers. "This statement is a total
fabrication and a gross distortion of the Diez-Gonzalez study," charged
Kastel. "Alex Avery will say anything in his petty little war against
organic food and farming"

The only criticism of the research, levied by The Cornucopia Institute, was
that nearly 80 percent of the samples taken during the study came from
organic farms and only 20% from conventional operations. "If conventional
produce was represented as a higher percentage of the total, maybe the
findings would have looked even more favorable, in terms of the comparable
safety of organic products," said the Cornucopia's Kastel. The conventional
sampling was also extremely light in terms of the produce items that were
most susceptible to contamination (leafy greens and lettuce).

According to Dr. Diez-Gonzalez, investigators are attempting to include more
conventional produce in the second and third year of their research.

"One of the positive findings from the Minnesota study is that the potential
for contamination on farms certified as organic by the USDA, under the
federal supervisory program which went into effect in 2002, is demonstrably
lower than for farms that call themselves organic but are not certified,"
noted Kastel.

Federal law now mandates that any commercial organic producer must be
inspected on an annual basis. "It is not surprising that the best management
practices take place on certified farms where the operators are highly engaged,
educated and conforming to the strict regulations in terms of the use of
composted animal manure," Kastel added. "The results are higher quality and
safer produce for the consumer."

http://www.organicconsumers.org/orga...stel061504.cfm

From the Minnesota study abstract:

'Serotype O157:H7 was not detected in any produce samples, but
Salmonella was isolated from one organic lettuce and one organic
green pepper. '
http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/...e=05&page=0894

I'll repeat - veganic farming (using compost) is the way to go.

'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
Farming in harmony with nature

By Lauren Cahoon
Special to The Journal
August 4, 2006

VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his machinery and
go without fossil fuels once and for all? And along with that, what if they
all stopped putting pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers on
their fields?

What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and tilling their
soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and foods, gardens choked
with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young, a Ph.D. student and lecturer at
Cornell University, has done all of the above with his small farm - and
the business, like the crops, is growing.

"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the local
towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it
..... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."

Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost completely
without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, or pesticides.

The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife, Katharine,
purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young worked as the Sustainable
Business Director for New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. When
he discovered Bison Ridge, Young started working the land even while he
was still living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to the
Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at Cornell.

"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more fields
..... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob explained.
Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at some point, Young
took it a step farther.

"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a spring
rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky - almost like
when you wipe out on your bike and you get a brush burn. I know it sounds
cheesy, but I could feel how that (farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn'
when it was cleared and plowed.

"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than against it."

After that, Young started throwing common farming practices out the
window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts of composted
mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in the healthy soils and fields
around the farm, Young lets natural predators get rid of any insect pests.

No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing of new
fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in a hybrid car,
no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of production. Irrigation
of crops is either gravity-fed from an old stone well dug in the 1800s or
through pumps driven by solar energy. Super-rich compost is used on all
of the crops along with clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter
to the soil. Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural
communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced with diverse
types of vegetation).

In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the crops are
grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring to get a head
start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank of compost, whose
microbial activity keeps the growing beds at a toasty 70 degrees. During
the spring and summer, most of the plants are grown in outdoor raised
beds - which yield about three times as much per square meter as a regular
field.

"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not using a lot
of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple the amount of crops
from less land," Young said. "It is labor intensive, but you can target
your fertility management, and the produce is so good."

Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be infectious.
As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at Cornell, Young has had the
chance to tell many people in the community about Bison Ridge, which
is how Marion Dixon, a graduate student in developmental sociology, got
involved with the whole endeavor.

"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself, 'I'll do it
when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard Young give a
speech about recycling and sustainable living at her dining hall, she knew
she had found her chance to actually get involved.

Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each contributing
their time and effort into the land.

"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been done by a
lot of people - it's a community of people who have made his happen."

He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new way of
planting lettuce that has doubled production.

Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running the farm,
during the summer there are always several people who contribute, from
undergrads to graduate students to local people in the community - all
united by a common desire to work with the land.

"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the land and
outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get that sense of
community - plus there's the quality, healthy food. ... It's about believing
in a localized economy, believing in production that's ecologically and
community-based."

The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and community
involvement has paid off. Over the course of several seasons, Bison Ridge
has grown a variety of vegetables, maple syrup, wheat as well as eggs from
free-range chickens. They have a range of clients, including a supermarket
and several restaurants, and have delivered produce to many families in
CSA (Community Sponsored Agriculture) programs.

Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its independence
from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said that, since little if any
of their revenue is spent on gas, advertising or transportation, it makes
the food affordable to low-income people, another goal that Young and
Dixon are shooting for with their farming.

Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains the farm is
producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm for the less tangible
goods the farm provides.

"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive when
you're there."

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps...608040306/1002