Photo by amandabhslater/FlickrCC
My e-mail inbox is flooded with copies of an op-ed from today's New York Times arguing that pigs running around outside have "higher rates" of Salmonella, toxoplasma, and, most alarming, trichina than pigs raised in factory farms. The writer, James McWilliams, is a prize-winning historian at Texas State San Marcos whose forthcoming book is about the dangers of the locavore movement to the future of food.
I put "higher rates" in quotation marks because that is not what the study measured. The study on which McWilliams based his op-ed is published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. The investigators actually measured "seropositivity" (antibodies) in the pigs' blood. But the presence of antibodies does not necessarily mean that the animals--or their meat--are infected. It means that the free-range pigs were exposed to the organisms at some point and developed immunity to them. The industrial pigs were not exposed and did not develop immunity to these microorganisms. But you would never know that from reading the op-ed. How come?
Guess who paid for the study? The National Pork Board, of course.
The Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins has much to say about all this. My point, as always, is that sponsored studies are invariably designed in ways that produce results favorable to the sponsor. In this case, the sponsor represents industrial pork producers.
SHOP THE ATLANTIC FOOD MARKETPLACE
Subscribe to Atlantic Food
Does Dr. Nestle suggest that the authors of the study are corrupt? Is the science flawed? If so, how? How did the study pass the peer-review process? Or is Dr. Nestle suggesting that McWilliams misinterprets otherwise sound science? I'm not qualified to judge the science. But if Dr. Nestle thinks the science is flawed because of the funding source (as suggested by the title), then she should follow up and point out how exactly the science is flawed.
More generally, I think a lot of university research is funded by industry or other interest groups. I do not think that all of this work can be disregarded as biased. I agree we should always be skeptical, perhaps more so when the work is funded by interested parties. But our judgement in the end has to be of the work itself, not of the funding source.
Your response to the Times' op-ed doesn't make sense.
Yes, it's true that seropositivity doesn't guarantee the presence of trichina, but that's irrelevant. Seropositivity indicates exposure, and if the question is whether trichina occurs at higher rates in free-range pigs, the data suggests that it does.(And nothing you've said raises any doubt about that.)
Your main criticism against the claim is that someone with an agenda paid for the study. But so what? That's only a problem if the study has been manipulated. If it hasn't, the fact that the National Pork Board paid for it is irrelevant.
I find it odd that you complain about "bad science," but at the same time issue such an anti-scientific response.
James McWilliams made an earlier appearance in the Freakonomics blog, arguing (straw man style) against locavorism. You can find it under Stephen Dubner's posts.
1. the most significant difference in seropositivity between test groups is regional. Wisconsin pork has the highest incidence of Salmonella toxicity in any growing condition.
2. treating animals with antibiotics is a good way to prevent them from acquiring seropositivity. here's the title of the study: Antimicrobial-Free and Conventional Swine Production Systems. See the first group? Antimicrobial-free. Hmmm...
3. there is no significant difference in trichinella seropositivity in the AMF and conventional systems. 2 incidences out of 600+ is not significant. the data table in the study even says so (p value of 0.2). that basically means the difference is due to chance.
so the "conclusions" being drawn post hoc from the study are bunk.
feel free to believe what you will, but this scientist only needed about two seconds of reading a pdf report in the journal of clownshoes to figure out that there was nothing important in it...
Joel,
I don't understand your response either.
I think that it's unfortunate that people are often confused by "scientific" claims and take them to imply more than they do. But what in the article warrants your comment that it issues from the "journal of clownshoes"? I don't see any "clownish" assertions in it, nor do I see any instances of the authors drawing erroneous post hoc conclusions.
Your response to the article is that there's nothing important in it. That's fine. Maybe there isn't.
Perhaps you missed the main reason I characterized Nestle's criticism as anti-scientific. Nestle's complaint was that, since this study was paid for by the National Pork Board, it must itself be contaminated. But that's just silly. We shouldn't be scaring people away from data simply because the person who paid to collect the data has an agenda.
I applaud the fact that you engaged the study directly, but Nestle's glib dismissal is inappropriate. (From Nestle, "My point, as always, is that sponsored studies are invariably designed in ways that produce results favorable to the sponsor.")
Logicchop, I think you are picking nits and distracting from the underlying problem, and shame on you for doing so. McWilliams cited a singular piece of preliminary research and used it in a mainstream forum (read by folks who are mostly unaware of the problems of research that is both singular and preliminary) as the basis of a diatribe against non-industrial pork farming. This is an inappropriate use of science (given that it is irresponsible to publish conclusions based on research that is either preliminary *or* singular), and the NY Times is serving as McWilliams' propaganda arm to give his upcoming book credibility. I recognize that it is an op-ed and therefore not claiming to be science. But it is powerful misinformation being delivered to folks who presume the NY Times is less likely than other rags to present them with unfiltered propaganda. What makes this more dangerous is that the author has academic credentials (albeit as an historian of agriculture rather than as a biologist) and readers are more likely to accept McWilliams' straw-man arguments as having more credibility than they should. Even for an op-ed, it's a bit schlocky, and has a high potential of misinforming NY Times readers.
McWilliams' piece pretends to be an informed piece of opinion by a scholar who should know what he's talking about. The extent to which his piece fails the giggle test by those who have read more extensively on the subject should be troubling to all. I've yet to find any defense of this piece that cites science, and that should give you pause as well.
Marion Nestle has started a great blog! There is also very little to add to Michele Sullivan's good comments. If find the arguments used for justifying the continued existence of our concentration camps even more absurd than an claims by climate change deniers.
Yes - if we removed all workers from the economy and put them on eternal welfare and if we locked them all up in hospitals - they would potentially be more save from injuries... And? It would still not be affordable for long, also known as unsustainable, and it would still be missing the point about... life and long-term-health.
That is exactly what we trying to do when it comes to factory farms. Because we did not feel and pay for the negative externalities of "Concentrated Animal Operations" at the beginning of this enterprise - we know defend it by cherry picking some supposed advantages?
No - as we know from all kinds of big-picture studies by say John Hopkins University, Harvard or the UN - factory farming is simply not sustainable. Even less so than the monoculture which is usually used for its feed productions.
We know of the real and supposed advantages of factory farming. As long as negative externalities are not priced transparently and honestly - factory meat is cheaper than non-industrial meat in the ecological short-run. But not only do we not price concentration meat properly - we subsidize it with our hard-earned tax money while real "things" like fruits get nothing. Rich livestock farmers gets more tax billions every year than GM wanted from us only once or twice in its entire history. No wonder they both keep telling us that it would not work to switch to more sustainable products.
As a result - healthy and sustainable foods cost more than unhealthy and unsustainable ones. In a free and transparent market it would be the other way around naturally. Right now, almost everybody involved except for a few rich bosses loses... workers, consumers, nature and especially animals.
On an ethical end note - I invite Mr James McWilliams to spend only a few weeks under the conditions that billions of animals have to endure for a life time. I'd be interested to hear from him how much he would be willing to pay for shortening that time or for improving his condition. We might have the right to consume what we want and desire - but we do not have the right to derive it as we please? This disconnect only works because we have turned subjects into objects.