Raw deal

You know, there are things humans used to do that we've stopped doing, and usually it's for a good reason.  Bloodletting in order to cure infectious diseases, for example.  You would think this would have gone out of vogue sooner than it did, given that the treatment so often had the unfortunate side effect of death.  But these were the days before malpractice lawsuits, so perhaps that explains it.

The problem is, there's a mystique connected to stuff our ancestors did, and a whole "back to our roots" movement amongst people who apparently have an inordinate fondness for surgery without anesthesia and no indoor plumbing.  The idea is that we need to jettison three hundred years of scientific advances, which have made us the longest-lived and healthiest human society the world has ever known, simply because it sounds appealing to do things "the old way."

As an example of this, take the whole "raw milk" phenomenon.  The idea is that the nasty technological processes of pasteurization and homogenization are screwing up the nutritive value of milk, and we need to be going back to the straight-from-the-cow stuff.  This conveniently ignores the fact that the two processes, especially pasteurization, were invented to increase the shelf life of milk and to prevent the consumption of dairy products from being an avenue for such unpleasantness as cryptosporidium, shigellosis, and TB, which used to be a serious problem.  People forget that those diseases have declined not only from the use of antibiotics to treat them, but a combination of better farming practices and higher food safety standards to stop them from spreading in the first place.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

Which is something that a couple in Australia should have been told before they gave their three-year-old son raw milk that had been approved as a "milk bath" but had big "NOT SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" and "FOR COSMETIC PURPOSES ONLY" messages on the label.  But to hell with that, right?  "Raw" means "natural" and "natural" means "good."  After drinking the raw milk, the little boy developed an E. coli infection that led to blood sepsis and thrombotic microangiopathy, which is as horrible as it sounds.  Symptoms include kidney failure, high fever, and poor blood clotting.  It's almost always fatal.

Which it was in this case.  The child died on October 4.

Under Australian law, the parents apparently can't be prosecuted, although you have to wonder what constitutes negligent homicide if this doesn't.  On the other hand, the case has prompted authorities to propose a new law that will fine someone $60,000 if (s)he knowingly gives someone a product to eat that is labeled as unsafe for human consumption.

Which, of course, is too little and too late for the child, who died solely because his parents are back-to-the-earth morons who have never heard of the naturalistic fallacy.

I know that makes me sound unfeeling, but for fuck's sake, a little boy died here.  If you want to give up technology and medical advances and go live in a yurt in the woods, knock yourself out.  But to visit your Luddite tendencies upon a child who has no voice in the matter is nothing short of child endangerment.  And apparently they're not the only ones who've done this.  Drinking raw milk -- including milk certified for cosmetic use only -- is becoming commonplace, despite the fact that it can be associated with severe health problems.  (Four other children in Australia were hospitalized in the past year with hemolytic uremic syndrome, a complication of E. coli infection, from drinking raw milk.)

The advances we've made in science are called "advances" for a reason.  Yes, I know they have come with tradeoffs -- from pollution to the profit motive -- but on balance, there is a good reason that our average life expectancy is over twice what it was in the Middle Ages.  Childhood mortality is extremely low, and hundreds of diseases that were death sentences a century ago are now completely treatable.

So if you think it's a good idea to jettison all that, that's up to you.  But don't bring your kids along on the ride.

Fact-free zone

It's a theme that has cropped up over and over here at Skeptophilia; the fact that people spend a lot more time reacting from emotion than they do from rational thinking.

But the fact of its being familiar doesn't mean it's not maddening.  Which is why I responded to a recent paper that appeared in Perspectives on Psychological Science a couple of days ago with a wince and a facepalm.

Entitled "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States," and written by Sydney E. Scott and Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania and Yoel Inbar of the University of Toronto, the paper had the following depressing conclusion:

Public opposition to genetic modification (GM) technology in the food domain is widespread (Frewer et al., 2013).  In a survey of U.S. residents representative of the population on gender, age, and income, 64% opposed GM, and 71% of GM opponents (45% of the entire sample) were “absolutely” opposed—that is, they agreed that GM should be prohibited no matter the risks and benefits.  “Absolutist” opponents were more disgust sensitive in general and more disgusted by the consumption of genetically modified food than were non-absolutist opponents or supporters.  Furthermore, disgust predicted support for legal restrictions on genetically modified foods, even after controlling for explicit risk–benefit assessments.  This research suggests that many opponents are evidence insensitive and will not be influenced by arguments about risks and benefits.

Catch that?  45% of the people surveyed think that GMOs should be illegal regardless of the risks or benefits.  In other words, regardless of the evidence.  Apparently, a little under half of the respondents could be presented with persuasive evidence that GMOs are risk-free and have proven benefits, and they still would be against them.

It's a discouraging finding.  There are a great many issues facing us today that drive an urgent need to make smart decisions.  We need to be making those decisions based on facts and logic, not on knee-jerk gut response and inflammatory rhetoric.  Climate change, policy on vaccines, regulation of alternative medicine, even the oversight of public education -- how can we do what's right if we're making decisions irrespective of the facts?

Of course, part of the problem is that even people with access to the facts often don't know the facts.  Witness the study released last week in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology that showed that 80% of respondents wanted to have laws mandating labeling identifying all foods that contain DNA.

Yes, you read that right.  Not genetically modified DNA; DNA, period.  To make it even worse, 33% of the respondents thought that non-genetically-modified tomatoes "did not contain genes," and 32% thought that "vegetables do not contain DNA."  As Katherine Mangu-Ward put it over at Reason.com, "When it comes to genetically modified food, people don't know much, they don't know what they don't know, and they sure as heck aren't letting that stop them from having strong opinions."

The problem is, the people who shriek the loudest tend to be the ones with the least comprehension of science.  Senator James Inhofe, who for some baffling reason is the chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, thinks that holding up a snowball disproves anthopogenic climate change.  The alt-med/anti-vaccine crowd still believe Andrew Wakefield's discredited study linking vaccinations to autism, despite overwhelming research demonstrating that there is no connection -- and anyone who argues otherwise is said to be "a shill for Big Pharma."  (Makes me wonder when my first Shill Check is going to arrive.  Soon, I hope.  I could use the money.)

Only rarely does anyone look at the evidence and say, "Oh.  Okay.  I guess I was wrong, then."  And the paper by Scott et al. seems to support the contention that if I'm waiting for this to happen, I better not be holding my breath.

Of course, along with resistance to change, another natural human inclination is the whole "Hope Springs Eternal" phenomenon.  So I'm not giving up on blogging, at least not any time soon.  Despite the rather dismal conclusion of the recent research, I'm still hopeful that we can make change, incrementally, by picking away wherever we can.

Milk of human kindness

I'm not a big believer in schadenfreude -- taking pleasure in other people's misfortune.  The habit of compassion is just too strongly ingrained in me.  But there are times that a person who richly deserves it receiving swift comeuppance is simply impossible to ignore.

Take, for example, the West Virginia lawmakers who passed a bill last week to legalize the sale of raw milk.  Raw milk was eliminated from the market in 1987, when the FDA mandated the pasteurization of all milk and milk products.  For good reason; there are a lot of bacteria in raw milk, and in fact the consumption of raw milk was a major pathway for the transmission of such horrible diseases as brucellosis and tuberculosis.

The FDA's statement on the topic is unequivocal:

Milk and milk products provide a wealth of nutrition benefits. But raw milk can harbor dangerous microorganisms that can pose serious health risks to you and your family. According to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 1993 and 2006 more than 1500 people in the United States became sick from drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk. In addition, CDC reported that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness and results in 13 times more hospitalizations than illnesses involving pasteurized dairy products. 

Raw milk is milk from cows, sheep, or goats that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. This raw, unpasteurized milk can carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are responsible for causing numerous foodborne illnesses. 

These harmful bacteria can seriously affect the health of anyone who drinks raw milk, or eats foods made from raw milk. However, the bacteria in raw milk can be especially dangerous to people with weakened immune systems, older adults, pregnant women, and children. In fact, the CDC analysis found that foodborne illness from raw milk especially affected children and teenagers.

But there are always people who are (1) doubters of hard science, and (2) resent any government interference in their god-given right to do stupid stuff.  And when these two characteristics meet, we have problems.

So the lawmakers in West Virginia passed their bill allowing the sale of raw milk, and the delegate who sponsored the bill, Scott Cadle, decided to toast their success by drinking some.

The whole lot of them were laid low a day later by nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

[screen capture from video]

Of course, that's not enough for people who ignored all of the FDA's warnings to begin with.  Delegate Pat McGeehan, in between elbowing his fellow lawmakers out of the way to reach the bathroom in time, said, "I highly doubt raw milk had anything to do with it, in my case."

I think if I had to choose my least favorite common contagious disease, it would have to be stomach flu.  Fortunately, I don't get it often, but the time I had it the worst -- a never-to-be-forgotten twelve hour period of presumed food poisoning in Belize -- I would have happily jumped off a cliff to end my misery, had I had the strength to do anything other than kneel on the floor with my face in the toilet.  But even so, I have to admit I laughed when I read about this.  It's all very well to rail against government regulation, and I actually agree that governments often go way overboard in trying to license and regulate and restrict damn near everything.  (Take, for example, a law still on the books in Philadelphia that requires bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license, a practice that puts 99% of bloggers in the red.)

On the other hand, there are some regulations that are there for a reason, and the restrictions on selling unsafe foods are among them.  And as far as the sick West Virginia delegates, I hope they're all feeling better by now.

But I still think it's kind of funny.

GMO burrito attack

Many of you have undoubtedly heard about Chipotle's announcement last April that they were switching over to using entirely GMO-free ingredients.  The whole thing had us science types rolling our eyes, because it has been shown repeatedly that GMOs aren't dangerous in general (even though there have been rare specific cases that have had untoward effects, and those have been taken off the market).  Despite the evidence, the health-food cadre applauded Chipotle's move, saying that it was reassuring that at least one restaurant chain was doing the Right Thing.

Which is about all of the good news that Chipotle had in 2015, because beginning in the summer, they have had one problem after another with food-borne illnesses.  First, there was a norovirus outbreak in Seattle in July, followed by another in Simi Valley, California in August, sickening at least 240 people in the process.  August and September saw an outbreak of salmonella in Minnesota that sickened 64.  Another 52 contracted E. coli in October from restaurants in nine different states.  Then norovirus reappeared in Boston in December, causing nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea for 136 patrons.

The whole thing prompted the chain to announce a one-day closure in February 2016 to train staff on food safety, which seems a little after-the-fact but is better than nothing.  And the whole thing would have gone down as another example of dubious handling of a crisis by a corporation, if Mike Adams hadn't gotten involved.

Yes, Mike Adams, the "Health Ranger" and owner of Natural News, who spends much of his time sounding like a raving lunatic.  This time, he says, the bad guys have been caught red-handed.  The series of illnesses contracted by patrons of Chipotle aren't just an example of bad food handling and poor cleanliness standards; no, this is a deliberate attack by "food terrorists" to discredit the restaurant because of their fearless stand on GMOs.

I'm not making this up.  Here's a direct quote:

After observing recent events involving Chipotle and e.coli, here's my analysis of the situation: Chipotle's e.coli outbreaks are not random chance.  They are the result of the biotech industry unleashing bioterrorism attacks against the only fast food company that has publicly denounced GMOs. 

How do we know?  The CDC has already admitted that some of these e.coli outbreaks involve a "rare genetic strain" of e.coli not normally seen in foods.  Furthermore, we also know the track record of the biotech industry engaging in the most criminal, dirty, sleazebag tactics imaginable against any person or company that speaks out against GMOs.

So that's it?  No evidence?  Your "analysis" is based on the E. coli strain being "rare" and that the biotech industry is made up of a bunch of bad guys?  Oh, but wait... he says this same tactic has been used against another victim:

Doctor Oz, for example, was maliciously targeted in a defamation campaign funded by the biotech industry earlier this year.  The onslaught against Oz was initiated because he publicly expressed his support for honest GMO labeling on foods.

No, the investigation (hardly a "defamation campaign") was launched because Oz was giving health advice that was demonstrably false and selling supplements that were ineffective, not because he was against GMOs.  And using Dr. Oz, who still rakes in millions, as an example of a pitiful victim of an "onslaught" leaves me trying to find a word stronger than "disingenuous" and failing completely.

Adams doesn't mince words, however.  He spells it out plainly:

There is absolutely no question that the biotech industry will resort to ANY activity necessary to destroy food companies that oppose GMOs.  And yes, this includes acts of bioterrorism against Chipotle -- something that's ridiculously easy for biotech industry operatives to carry out with simple, low-cost laboratory supplies sold online at places like Amazon.com. 

To be clear, what's really happening at Chipotle is that biotech industry shills are deliberately contaminating Chipotle's food with strains of e.coli in a malicious attempt to destroy both the reputation and finances of the Chipotle food chain...  The idea that exposing the public to e.coli might be harmful to some people doesn't cause them to hesitate for even a moment.  The more people get sick or die from their Chipotle operation, the better for biotech!

What is funniest about all of this is that Chipotle is currently under investigation itself for selling food containing GMOs -- after they declared themselves GMO-free.  "We have always been clear that our soft drinks contained GMO ingredients, and that the animals from which our meat comes consume GMO feed.  But, that does not mean that our meat is GMO, any more than people would be genetically modified if they eat GMO foods," said Chris Arnold, Chipotle’s Communications Director.

So Chipotle is GMO-free in the sense of selling some food that is GMO-free and some that is not, and not being up front with its customers about which is which.  Got it.

And this is the company that the Evil Biotech Terrorists are targeting because they're too green?

[image courtesy of photographer Rosalee Yagihara and the Wikimedia Commons]

Let me reiterate: the vast majority of GMO foods are completely safe to consume.  Certain of them -- Bt corn comes to mind -- actually decrease the quantity of pesticides used by farmers, resulting in a healthier environment.  Others, like the GM papayas that are resistant to ringspot virus, have rescued an entire industry from bankruptcy (and it's to be hoped that the Evil Biotech guys will find a similar way to save bananas from the fungus Tropical Race 4, and oranges from the bacterial disease huanglongbing -- before two of our favorite fruits are a thing of the past).

The problem is, understanding the risks and benefits of genetic modification requires that you learn some science, and for a lot of people, it's easier to listen to people like Mike Adams rant about how the biotech industry is trying to DESTROY THE HUMAN RACE MWA HA HA HA HA HA.  It's not like we haven't had ample evidence that Adams's proclamations are nonsense; but unfortunately, in the media the usual case is that the guy who screams the loudest is the one who gets believed.

For what it's worth, here's my analysis, no screaming needed: there have been hundreds of norovirus, E. coli, and salmonella outbreaks in the past, and there's no need to invent bioterrorists to account for them.  Chipotle could certainly use some improvement in their food-handling standards, however, because five outbreaks in one year is kind of a lot.  Not to mention the fact that before they announce that they're GMO-free, they should make sure they're really GMO-free, for the benefit of people who care about such things.

And last: Mike Adams really needs to shut the hell up.