Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Besides sloppy reporting--there is also tendency to write a story to fit a preconceived conclusion. Nothing new at the "paper of record."

This past summer one of our local county health inspectors and I were discussing new menu rules Michigan wanted to implement regarding the printed warnings regarding raw and undercooked food. I mentioned off-handedly about the medium-rare pork listed in the menu I design for a local restaurant. She about had a conniption about it, spouting the 160 degree F rule. It was kinda funny when I asked how many complaints and illness reports they'd gotten because of it, which of course was zero. she had no defense, except that of, "Well that's the rule". Nah, that's a lack of real knowledge and understanding.

Trichinella spiralis, the causative agent of the disease trichinosis, is a round worm, not a bacteria. Maybe this is a small distinction to some.

Thanks Ed. I didn't want to be afraid to eat my favorite meat!

Considering that this article is also full of sloppy writing and clearly not edited at all, I think the title is going a bit overboard. First of all we're not talking about a bacteria here, it's a worm, a parasitic worm that likes to live in your brain. Sounds good, huh? Second you're quoting a pig farmer for advice----um is she a microbiologist or an MD or someone else with qualifications to address this. All she does is quote the CDC which is a great source but anyone can google that same info. The problem is that even knowing the appropriate cooking temperatures people still get sick. Hamburger is perfectly safe if cooked to the appropriate temperature even it was contaminated with E coli and yet people still get sick all the time. What happens if you didn't really measure the thickest part of the meat or your thermometer is off by a few degrees. Thats why the USDA recommends 170. Is it really worth getting an untreatable worm that's going to lodge itself in your brain just to have a moister cut of pork?

Not only all that, but the study referenced was "sponsored science" paid for by the National Pork Board.

see: http://food.theatlantic.com/nutrition/sponsored-science-strikes-again.php

Hmmm. I wonder if they have an agenda?

Let us not forget that the author of the op-ed piece also has a book to sell. Nothing like a controversy to keep one's name in the forefront . Or in the front of Barnes & Noble's window. I agree with Ed that the piece was irresponsible and had more than a tinge of hysteria attached to it. I was also flummoxed by the use of the term 'free-range pig". I am used to that designation to describe how chickens, etc are rasied but I have never heard the term in reference to pigs. Heritage yes, free range no. I also agree with the poster who stated that commodity pork is full of antibiotics that probably do us more harm than we know. I'll take a chop from Flying Pigs over one from Stop N Shop any day and take my chances. And as for the New York Times, well, aren't they the paper that promoted the war in Iraq with fabricated and/or erroneus information?

mphuges: The study was sponsored by The National Pork Board and measured the presence of antibodies, not actual toxins.

More detailed analyses:
http://www.livablefutureblog.com/2009/04/smoked-“bacon”-and-mirrors/

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/is-free-range-pork-more-contaminated-than-industrial-pork/

@popcornfordinner, for your information, you can safely eat alot of MRSA and not feel a thing. It's not a super toxic bug, just a hard to kill bug. Alot of humans are infact colonizers of MRSA anyways, you only worry about it if it is a skin infection that gets into your blood stream, stabbed, or immunocomprimised. Don't feed propaganda, and try to use words you don't know thanks...

I'm really glad we're having a civilized discussion about this topic. Let's make sure we keep it on topic and also make sure we don't get into personal jibes. Popcornfordinner posted a great, relevant link in her comment to Marion Nestle's blog post on the editorial. Well worth reading.

Wow Ed, normally I like your posts, but what you've done here is nearly the same as what you're railing against. The first thing you failed to recognize was that the article in question was an Op-Ed piece. That means it represents opinion over actual reporting of evidence and hence there's no reason for the editorial board to ask the author to be fair or balanced or informed. Second, have you read the actual journal article that the piece uses as its main evidence? Its free for anyone to read at the publishers website. While you and others may complain that it was industry funded research, as an actual research scientist that means little to me. Someone has to pay for such studies, and the pork board has a vested interest in knowing whether or not their management practices are the best. Free range or "confined" doesn't matter to them as long as it sells more pork. As for the article itself, there are numerous issues that I have with it in terms of the science conducted and how its been presented. That reflects the authors and NOT the pork industry. Should you fear eating free range pork because of the results, no. But should you also be concerned about the implications, yes.

Please, next time, think about the issue as a whole before you get all riled up over one small particular issue.

@popcornfordinner, sorry for the misinterpretation, nice links btw. I still believe MRSA risen more from antibiotic usage in humans though.

More on the subject of the story. I rather get pork roundworms than pork tapeworms =). I think it maybe useful, since we eat so much (includes me). I won't mind losing a few pounds to these worms.

I agree with the sentiment that the original Op-Ed piece was neither alarmist nor biased. I think the point of it was to highlight the fact that raising pigs outdoors will increase the prevalence of various pathogens they are likely to encounter in the environment, which is why they were moved indoors in the first place. The increased risk to the human consumer may be negliglible, but it is increased nonetheless.

Ultimately I think that it is much more important to look at how confined pork production (along with most industrial ag techniques) may be responsible for the rise of MRSA. It is, I think, also good to note that there are two fairly distinct strains of MRSA -- "community acquired" and "hospital acquired." The hospital acquired strain results from the rampant use of antibiotics in hospitals, and I suspect it is responsible for the vast majority of MRSA-associated deaths due to the high-risk population one finds in a hospital. But the community acquired strain is most likely much much more prevalent, with most carriers having no infection. Staph aureus (the SA in MRSA) is, after all, the most common type of bacteria found on human skin. It is far more likely that the spread of MRSA is due to human-human transmission, and it is very unlikely to be a food-borne pathogen (as opposed to Salmonella, E. coli, trichinosis, etc.).

So if I am worried about whether *this* piece of pork will make me sick if I eat it, chances are the pork from a pig raised outdoors will be "less safe" than the one raised indoors. The risk is probably less than that of me getting sick from eating raw egg, raw fish/shellfish, and medium-cooked burgers, but I do all of those with reckless abandon. If I am worried about the epidemiologic and public health consequences of raising pigs certain ways, then it is clear that confined, go go antibiotics, industrial methods are far, far riskier.

OK, so I read the study in question, because a few people asked me about it. I will say at the start that the op-ed was not my favorite, and as a former writer of pieces like this I detected all sorts of tricks clever opinion writers use to bend reality to their point of view; it is part of the craft.

But let's just take the writer at face value: The study he refers to looked at 329 "free range" hogs and tested them, and then found 2 -- yes, only 2 -- that had even the presence of antibodies for the trichinae parasite.

Now the presence of antibodies is not a 100 percent guarantor that the hog is infected. They probably do have trichinae worms, but the presence of antibodies also can mean that the hog has defeated the parasite at some point in its past and has a strengthened immune system because of it. (think Nietzsche)

But for the sake of argument, let's just say both of those hogs actually had trichinae: 2 pigs out of 329 is a REALLY good set of odds. Why? It's all about perception. Most consumers are still convinced ALL hogs carry trichinae worms, so given this, even the Gucci hogs are beating the odds.

So the bottom line for me is that I'd still rather buy pork from a "walkin' around pig" that had an honest immune system -- and yes, a less than 1 percent chance of carrying trichinae parasites -- than a factory hog. And I'll cook that walkin' around pig the way I like it: with a nice blush of pink at its center.

trichinosis is not caused by a bacteria, it's caused by a parasitic nematode, or roundworm, that forms cysts in host tissue. actually, there are three species of nematode that can cause trichinosis, t. spirialis, t. britovi, and t. nativa. all the fuss made about cooking pork to a higher temperature is because these worms form cysts, which are quite resistant to environmental changes (such as temperature), and note: bacteria do not form cysts. the worms form cysts because they are hoping to get ingested by another animal to continue their life cycle, and they need to be able to resist harsh environments such as stomach acids.

I'm with Meat guy -- I shoot for 145 degrees as well. It is still "blush of pink" that way, and still plenty juicy.

just FYi the editors decided to append a note disclosing the funding source of the studies used:
"Editors' Note: April 14, 2009
An Op-Ed article last Friday, about pork, neglected to disclose the
source of the financing for a study finding that free-range pigs were
more likely than confined pigs to test positive for exposure to
certain pathogens. The study was financed by the National Pork Board."