Here is an interesting response to Representative George Miller’s request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigate E. coli and school lunches by John Maday, an editor for Drovers Magazine, a periodical devoted to the cattle industry. The editorial is a below:
It’s difficult to argue against protecting students from food-borne illness, but this investigation seems excessively biased against beef and E. coli. Experience tells us that a wide range of foods carry the potential for contamination. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,“ The most commonly recognized food-borne infections are those caused by the bacteria Campylobacter, Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7, and by a group of viruses called calicivirus, also known as the Norwalk and Norwalk-like viruses.” Also according to the CDC, Campylobacter and Salmonella are most commonly found in poultry products. Two of the biggest recent outbreaks of food-borne illness, and subsequent recalls, did not involve beef, with one caused by Salmonella in peanut products and the other E. coli in fresh greens. Also, a study released this week from the AMI Foundation shows the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef has declined 45 percent since 2000. Clearly, recent outbreaks and fatalities provide a stark reminder that the industry must do everything it can to eliminate E. coli O157:H7 from the food supply. It is not, however, the only cause of food-borne illness, and singling out beef for investigation seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to recent headlines than a genuine effort to protect food safety. – John Maday, Drovers managing editor
First, I am a little curious how someone could complain that a GAO investigation could be “excessively biased” against E. coli. Is this proposed look into student lunches unfairly targeting beef AND E. coli or is the editor admitting that beef and E. coli are so closely related that one cannot investigate the prevalence of E. coli without dragging beef into the investigation?
E. coli O157:H7 didn’t get the nickname “the hamburger disease” because the potentially lethal bacterium enjoys eating ground beef, it got the name because E. coli O157:H7 is commonly found in hamburger and ground beef. The investigation targets beef because E. coli is a particularly nasty pathogen that has no place in our food supply, yet seems to show up in our food supply, especially ground beef.
Next, Mr. Maday is kind enough to pull up some CDC facts regarding foodborne illnesses; unfortunately, the facts don’t really make a very strong argument. He points out that Campylobacter and Salmonella, two of the more common food pathogens, are typically found in chicken products, not beef. That is unless you look at this summer’s gigantic recalls of ground beef contaminated with a nasty antibiotic resistant Salmonella (just a side note, one of the producers of the Salmonella tainted beef also supplied beef to the national student lunch program).
While it is true you are more likely to contract food poisoning from Salmonella or Campylobacter, these are relatively mild bacteria compared to E. coli O157:H7. Salmonella and Campylobacter don’t have a reputation of causing hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a vicious blood disease, usually caused by E. coli O157:H7, which has a penchant for killing the kidneys of children.
Mr. Maday goes on to mention that two highly publicized, somewhat recent foodborne illness outbreaks were related to peanut butter contaminated with Salmonella and leafy greens tainted with E. coli O157:H7. As he points out, these products were not beef products. While it is true that the Salmonella contaminated peanut butter had nothing to do with beef, the spinach recall of 2006 was partially blamed on cross contamination from a cattle ranch adjacent to the farm that grew the leafy vegetable. E. coli O157:H7 is a pathogen that thrives in the intestines and feces of cows. Water that was filled with cow dung was absorbed by the innocuous plant. It wasn’t spinach that posed the danger; it was the cow feces in the spinach that caused so many illnesses and deaths.
It is not like the congressman is asking the GAO to ignore the other threats foodborne pathogens pose to our school aged children, he is just asking for a report about the particular threat that E. coli poses to our national school lunch program. Can he not ask about a specific food poisoning threat without having to deal with all foodborne illness threats?
The next argument is a common one that you will find being used by the people that would like you to believe that the meat industry is doing everything in its power to curb E. coli. It is the AMI study that states the prevalence of E. coli in ground beef is down 45% since 2000.
The first issue I have with this misleading statement is that the survey was conducted by AMI, also known as the American Meat Institute, a special interest group that serves the meat industry. I question the objectivity of any study done by an organization paid to protect the subject of the study.
My next issue is that if you closely read the wording of the statement, it says that the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef is down, not that people aren’t still getting poisoned, not that hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) cases caused by E. coli O157:H7 contaminated beef are any less devastating and not that companies that provide beef to school lunches have not been subjected to massive recalls. So the number of reported E. coli infections might be down 44%, in my opinion, that is still a 56% failure rate.
It is likely true that Representative Miller’s inquiry to the GAO was spurred by recent headlines about E. coli O157:H7. That doesn’t address the fact that the distinguished congressman is responding to yet another series of recalls, severe illnesses, hemolytic uremic syndromes (HUS) victims and deaths all attributed to E. coli O157:H7 contaminated ground beef. To me it seems foolish to try so hard to defend ground beef rather than defend the school children that are still at risk from one of the scariest food pathogens that has been and is currently threatening our food.
Richard J. Arsenault, 2010
