Actually, what they carried was the where-with-all to fight the pathogens naturally - i.e. antibodies. What was also left out of the NY Times piece was that the "research" was paid for by the national pork board.
This is one of a growing waste heap of studies that are unabashedly biased, sloppy and becoming more transparently so. What kind of science is this? The aim is clearly to protect market share, and carry new products to market - they'll find what they need from the studies they pay for.
We are at a cusp now in the very perception of what is safe food.
Why the hyper focus on eradicating pathogenic bacteria "from farm to fork".
Why doesn't the pork board study antibiotics role in assisting to create a super bug? Or the consequences of residual bombardment of antibiotics on our inner family of friendly bacteria?
Having antibodies is a healthy part of being alive. We have many species of bacteria living symbiotically within. This study shows soil bacteria throws off the low down blues, and helps fight allergies.
What about the other urgent aspects of food safety?
Antibiotics in factory meat, hormones in milk, chemical residues, nano transmission, even perhaps slip-ups from engineered phages sprayed on meat or fresh veg.
There is growing public concern for real food safety and the veneer of propaganda is glaring but very thin. Let's use the opportunity to voice our other food safety concerns; I have yet to see discussion of the question of transgenic, chemical or nanoparticle toxicity in the news regarding the food safety bills - are they not mentioned? Where is this discussion?
The real momentum of cause, lobby and money toward food safety appears to be fo traceability. This would entitle government bodies and industry, presumably, insight to what is traveling to our "fork", but without labeling, the consumer would still be in the dark. That is absurdly and profoundly outrageous.
Hat tip to Jill Richardson.
hospital themed restaurant
No comments:
Post a Comment