• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

E. coli O157:H7

mrj

Well-known member
The hue and cry of 'journalists' claiming the outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 being caused by feeding grain to cattle was just as fake as much of the 'news' in some of the more vocally 'anti-whatever' press!

KSU veterinarian Dr. David Renter says "Cattle fed on grass, hay and other fibrous forage can have E. coli 0157:H7 in their feces AS CAN OTHER ANIMALS including deer, sheep, goats, bison, opossum, racoons, birds and many others".

He further states it is not factual that feeding cattle only grass, but that diet can affect levels of E coli 0157:H7 and further, that it is a complex issue and not all that simple and may even increase the E coli 0157:H7 level in cattle.

Other phrases and words Renter used were "simplistic attack", "politically expedient", "false sense of security", re. the 'journalism' of this story.

"The current spinach outbreak MAY be traced back to cattle manure, but there are many other potential sources", said Dr. Renter, very accurately summing up the story, IMO.

Hopefully, those attempting to find the source are not losing valuable time and information by focusing too much on the easy source and leaving people open to further infections from sources more difficult to find.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Viewpoints, Outlook Email this storyPrinter friendly format

Sept. 21, 2006, 10:15PM
The real beef about E. coli outbreak is out of the bag
Grain-fed cattle most likely source of deadly bacterium

By NINA PLANCK

One thing about the recent spate of E. coli infections linked to raw spinach is clear: Farmers and food safety officials are, officially, clueless. No particular stomachache has been traced to any particular bag of spinach from any particular farm irrigated by any particular river.

There is also no evidence so far that Natural Selection Foods, the huge shipper implicated in the outbreak that packages salad greens under more than two dozen brands, including Earthbound Farm, O Organic and the Farmer's Market, failed to use proper handling methods.

Indeed, this epidemic, which has infected more than 100 people and resulted in at least one death, probably has little do with the folks who grow and package your greens. The detective trail ultimately leads back to a seemingly unrelated food industry — beef and dairy cattle.

First, some basic facts about this usually harmless bacterium: E. coli is abundant in the digestive systems of healthy cattle and humans, and if your potato salad happened to be carrying the average E. coli, the acid in your gut is usually enough to kill it.

But the villain in this outbreak, E. coli O157:H7, is far scarier, at least for humans. Your stomach juices are not strong enough to kill this acid-loving bacterium, which is why it's more likely than other members of the E. coli family to produce abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever and, in rare cases, fatal kidney failure.

Where does this particularly virulent strain come from? It's not found in the intestinal tracts of cattle raised on their natural diet of grass, hay and other fibrous forage. No, O157 thrives in a new — that is, recent in the history of animal diets — biological niche: the unnaturally acidic stomachs of beef and dairy cattle fed on grain, the typical ration on most industrial farms. It's the infected manure from these grain-fed cattle that contaminates the groundwater and spreads the bacteria to produce, like spinach, growing on neighboring farms.

In 2003, The Journal of Dairy Science noted that up to 80 percent of dairy cattle carry O157. (Fortunately, food safety measures prevent contaminated fecal matter from getting into most of our food most of the time.) Happily, the journal also provided a remedy based on a simple experiment. When cows were switched from a grain diet to hay for only five days, O157 declined 1,000-fold.

This is good news. In a week, we could choke O157 from its favorite home — even if beef cattle were switched to a forage diet just seven days before slaughter, it would greatly reduce cross-contamination by manure of, say, hamburger in meat-packing plants. Such a measure might have prevented the E. coli outbreak that plagued the Jack in the Box fast food chain in 1993.

Unfortunately, it would take more than a week to reduce the contamination of ground water, flood water and rivers — all irrigation sources on spinach farms — by the E. coli-infected manure from cattle farms.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture does recognize the threat from these huge lagoons of waste, and so pays 75 percent of the cost for a confinement cattle farmer to make manure pits watertight, either by lining them with concrete or building them above ground. But taxpayers are financing a policy that only treats the symptom, not the disease, and at great expense. There remains only one long-term remedy, and it's still the simplest one: Stop feeding grain to cattle.

California's spinach industry is now the financial victim of an outbreak it probably did not cause, and meanwhile, thousands of acres of other produce are still downstream from these lakes of E. coli-ridden cattle manure. So give the spinach growers a break, and direct your attention to the people in our agricultural community who just might be able to solve this deadly problem: the beef and dairy farmers.

Planck is the author of "Real Food: What to Eat and Why." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.


Source: Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4205781.html
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
How about a link to Dr. Renter's article?

www.MyCattle.com

The 'story' you posted clearly has an agenda other than helping prevent people from being infected with e coli, IMO.

How disgusting it is seeing such blatantly inflammatory statements with little to no basis in fact.

Ignoring the facts, or true ignorance of the facts benefits no one excepting those pushing the anti-beef agenda.

E coli 0157:H7 can be and IS carried and spread by a large number of animals besides cattle.

The beef industry has led the investigations and research for solutions to this problem. We have seen the numbers of cases drop dramatically since that research and use of solutions began.

Dr. Renter stated that stopping grain and feeding hay is inappropriate and irresponsible because of evidence suggesting such a change would not only not eliminate, but may even cause an increase in E. coli 0157H7.

His comment re-inforces what was learned in research by the beef in dustry task force put together by NCBA and others to find solutions to the E coli problem.
There have been some great successes in cutting the number of incidences, and there have been some disappointments when some practices which looked very promising turned out to be less effective than hoped.

Pushing home safety and cleanliness measures have been an important and effective means of cutting incidences of food borne illnesses.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
RobertMac said:
How about a link to Dr. Renter's article?

www.MyCattle.com

The 'story' you posted clearly has an agenda other than helping prevent people from being infected with e coli, IMO.

How disgusting it is seeing such blatantly inflammatory statements with little to no basis in fact.

Ignoring the facts, or true ignorance of the facts benefits no one excepting those pushing the anti-beef agenda.

E coli 0157:H7 can be and IS carried and spread by a large number of animals besides cattle.

The beef industry has led the investigations and research for solutions to this problem. We have seen the numbers of cases drop dramatically since that research and use of solutions began.

Dr. Renter stated that stopping grain and feeding hay is inappropriate and irresponsible because of evidence suggesting such a change would not only not eliminate, but may even cause an increase in E. coli 0157H7.

His comment re-inforces what was learned in research by the beef in dustry task force put together by NCBA and others to find solutions to the E coli problem.
There have been some great successes in cutting the number of incidences, and there have been some disappointments when some practices which looked very promising turned out to be less effective than hoped.

Pushing home safety and cleanliness measures have been an important and effective means of cutting incidences of food borne illnesses.

MRJ

MRJ, you would be scary if you only knew what you were talking about.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
RobertMac said:
How about a link to Dr. Renter's article?

www.MyCattle.com

The 'story' you posted clearly has an agenda other than helping prevent people from being infected with e coli, IMO.

How disgusting it is seeing such blatantly inflammatory statements with little to no basis in fact.

Ignoring the facts, or true ignorance of the facts benefits no one excepting those pushing the anti-beef agenda.

E coli 0157:H7 can be and IS carried and spread by a large number of animals besides cattle.

The beef industry has led the investigations and research for solutions to this problem. We have seen the numbers of cases drop dramatically since that research and use of solutions began.

Dr. Renter stated that stopping grain and feeding hay is inappropriate and irresponsible because of evidence suggesting such a change would not only not eliminate, but may even cause an increase in E. coli 0157H7.

His comment re-inforces what was learned in research by the beef in dustry task force put together by NCBA and others to find solutions to the E coli problem.
There have been some great successes in cutting the number of incidences, and there have been some disappointments when some practices which looked very promising turned out to be less effective than hoped.

Pushing home safety and cleanliness measures have been an important and effective means of cutting incidences of food borne illnesses.

MRJ

MRJ, you would be scary if you only knew what you were talking about.

Econ, how typical of you. Resort to personal attack when you have no facts to counter what I posted.

MRJ
 

OldDog/NewTricks

Well-known member
The Packing Plant in question is 10 miles from our place.

The word here is that the E coli 0157:H7 is in the Spinch it self.

In my way of thinking

The powers that be have sold the Farmers on using Reclaimed Water - I know many workers at the Recaiming plants and it is well known that they have pressure from city Officals to pass-on unfit water on to the Farmers for growing.

I have been in fields when/where the Reclaimed Water Stank.

You know the Farmers will get tthe Blame/Loose the Money the cities will see to that and never admit to anything

Maybe now Farmer will not be to busy to takes samples and / or report it

But as they say "To Who":!:

The cities are not going to report thereselves - everyone knows when the state -inspectors are in the area

One city is always "FINED" for dirtying a creek - the town is growing faster that their sewer system. A sample is only good if the State Draws It.

Now Their Killing People! And Who's getting the Blame
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ, it was not a personal attack. You simply did not read the article I posted and put your opinion in anyway. What good is it to post an article for someone like you?

Have you read the OIG report yet?

Case in point.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
OldDog/NewTricks said:
The Packing Plant in question is 10 miles from our place.

The word here is that the E coli 0157:H7 is in the Spinch it self.

In my way of thinking

The powers that be have sold the Farmers on using Reclaimed Water - I know many workers at the Recaiming plants and it is well known that they have pressure from city Officals to pass-on unfit water on to the Farmers for growing.

I have been in fields when/where the Reclaimed Water Stank.

You know the Farmers will get tthe Blame/Loose the Money the cities will see to that and never admit to anything

Maybe now Farmer will not be to busy to takes samples and / or report it

But as they say "To Who":!:

The cities are not going to report thereselves - everyone knows when the state -inspectors are in the area

One city is always "FINED" for dirtying a creek - the town is growing faster that their sewer system. A sample is only good if the State Draws It.

Now Their Killing People! And Who's getting the Blame

Old dog, is that on the other side of the santa cruz mtns. from you?

Were you there during the loma prieta? (sp?)
 

OldDog/NewTricks

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Old dog, is that on the other side of the santa cruz mtns. from you?

Were you there during the loma prieta? (sp?)

The packing Shed is 10 miles due South at San Juan Baustia(sp)

Watsonville is over the Santa Cruz Mtns 18 Miles due West Sants Cruz is 10 mile more west around the Bay

The Loma Prieta Mtn/Quake was 5 miles due west by Northwest as the crow flies

Waaaa Hoo :!:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Viewpoints, Outlook Email this storyPrinter friendly format

Econ, re your last post re. me: I did read this article, but did not take the time to directly point out each statement I find LESS than plausible (which means trustworthy or believable). I will do so now. MRJ
******************

Sept. 21, 2006, 10:15PM
The real beef about E. coli outbreak is out of the bag
Grain-fed cattle most likely source of deadly bacterium

By NINA PLANCK

One thing about the recent spate of E. coli infections linked to raw spinach is clear: Farmers and food safety officials are, officially, clueless. No particular stomachache has been traced to any particular bag of spinach from any particular farm irrigated by any particular river.

There is also no evidence so far that Natural Selection Foods, the huge shipper implicated in the outbreak that packages salad greens under more than two dozen brands, including Earthbound Farm, O Organic and the Farmer's Market, failed to use proper handling methods.

Indeed, this epidemic, which has infected more than 100 people and resulted in at least one death, probably has little do with the folks who grow and package your greens. The detective trail ultimately leads back to a seemingly unrelated food industry — beef and dairy cattle.

First, some basic facts about this usually harmless bacterium: E. coli is abundant in the digestive systems of healthy cattle and humans, and if your potato salad happened to be carrying the average E. coli, the acid in your gut is usually enough to kill it.

********************

But the villain in this outbreak, E. coli O157:H7, is far scarier, at least for humans. Your stomach juices are not strong enough to kill this acid-loving bacterium, which is why it's more likely than other members of the E. coli family to produce abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever and, in rare cases, fatal kidney failure.

Where does this particularly virulent strain come from? It's not found in the intestinal tracts of cattle raised on their natural diet of grass, hay and other fibrous forage. No, O157 thrives in a new — that is, recent in the history of animal diets — biological niche: the unnaturally acidic stomachs of beef and dairy cattle fed on grain, the typical ration on most industrial farms. It's the infected manure from these grain-fed cattle that contaminates the groundwater and spreads the bacteria to produce, like spinach, growing on neighboring farms.
***********
That claim does not hold water when held up to the fact that there are many animals naturally carrying and shedding E coli 0157:H7. Some of them are birds, deer, sheep, goats, raccoons and cattle that have NOT been fed grain.
MRJ
************

In 2003, The Journal of Dairy Science noted that up to 80 percent of dairy cattle carry O157. (Fortunately, food safety measures prevent contaminated fecal matter from getting into most of our food most of the time.) Happily, the journal also provided a remedy based on a simple experiment. When cows were switched from a grain diet to hay for only five days, O157 declined 1,000-fold.
**************

Claims of ending "0157", or even the real culprit, E. coli 0157:H7, by crucifying people for the practice of feeding grains and saying they could end the problem by switching to grass and hay diets is a dangerous oversimplification of testing results which at first appeared promising, but did not live up to that promise.

IMO, that sort of propaganda is more to promote the agenda of the writer than to help solve any problems caused by E. coli 0157:H7. Is that a book she is selling?

The practice of changing from a grain based to a forage based diet is not without problems. There has been indication that the practice may even INCREASE E. coli 0157:H7
MRJ
************
This is good news. In a week, we could choke O157 from its favorite home — even if beef cattle were switched to a forage diet just seven days before slaughter, it would greatly reduce cross-contamination by manure of, say, hamburger in meat-packing plants. Such a measure might have prevented the E. coli outbreak that plagued the Jack in the Box fast food chain in 1993.

Unfortunately, it would take more than a week to reduce the contamination of ground water, flood water and rivers — all irrigation sources on spinach farms — by the E. coli-infected manure from cattle farms.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture does recognize the threat from these huge lagoons of waste, and so pays 75 percent of the cost for a confinement cattle farmer to make manure pits watertight, either by lining them with concrete or building them above ground. But taxpayers are financing a policy that only treats the symptom, not the disease, and at great expense. There remains only one long-term remedy, and it's still the simplest one: Stop feeding grain to cattle.

California's spinach industry is now the financial victim of an outbreak it probably did not cause, and meanwhile, thousands of acres of other produce are still downstream from these lakes of E. coli-ridden cattle manure. So give the spinach growers a break, and direct your attention to the people in our agricultural community who just might be able to solve this deadly problem: the beef and dairy farmers.

Planck is the author of "Real Food: What to Eat and Why." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Econ, what is your agenda in posting that article?

It is one thing to show us what is being said about our industry, and quite another to laud the writer carrying less than accurate messages about E.coli 0157:H7, IMO.

Do you even know what NCBA and many other entities across the spectrum of the cattle/beef/food industry has been doing to contain, eliminate, or deal with the various E.coli problems we have? What our successes and failures have been?

MRJ




Source: Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4205781.html
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The vocal point: E. coli spinach outbreak on center of meat industry's plate
29.sep.06
Meatingplace.com
Dan Murphy
You knew this was coming.
Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has so far been unable to pinpoint the source of the E. coli O157:H7 in fresh bagged spinach, more than 180 people in 26 states have been infected, and one person has died during the last two weeks.
Worse, CDC reported that more than half of the people infected ended up in the hospital — nearly double the typical rate in O157:H7 incidents. About 15 percent of those patients developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, again a rate that is "higher than normal."
It's enough to qualify the outbreak as a major food-safety failure.
On the part of the meat industry, to listen to some of the harsher media critics.
In other words, the spinach isn't responsible for the outbreak; cattle producers and meatpackers are.
That's because E. coli O157:H7 is associated with cattle manure, and that's enough evidence to convict producers and packers.
[By the way, anyone know the origins of how the (relatively) innocuous coliform bacteria mutated into such a virulent pathogen? In 1980, Alison O'Brien, a microbiologist at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., reasoned that since the toxin produced by pathogenic strains of shigella bacteria mimicked the "new" O157:H7 strain, it was likely that E. coli had somehow incorporated shigella's ability to produce such a toxin.]
What's troubling is that according many media critics, organic growers should be held blameless. For example: In a New York Times story last week, Nina Planck, a food activist and writer, wrote the following screed:
"There is also no evidence so far that Natural Selection Foods, the huge shipper implicated in the outbreak that packages salad greens under more than two dozen brands, failed to use proper handling methods.
"Indeed, this epidemic has little to do with the folks who grow and package your greens. The detective trail ultimately leads back to a seemingly unrelated food industry: beef and dairy cattle."
Planck resurrected the notion that O157:H7 thrives in a "new" biological niche: the acidic stomachs of beef and dairy cattle fed a grain-based diet, what Planck indelicately labeled "the typical ration on most industrial farms."
She then repeated the so-called conventional wisdom that contaminated manure from grain-fed cattle contaminates groundwater, and that's what contaminated the spinach.
Maintaining the myth
Planck referenced a 2003 study in The Journal of Dairy Science suggesting that when cows were switched from a grain diet to hay for only five days, O157 declined 1,000-fold.
This parallels a widely reported 1998 study at Cornell University claiming that switching Holstein cows to an all-hay diet caused the number of acid-resistant E. coli cells in the animals' digestive tracts to decline by nearly 100,000 fold in only five days.
All hail the food-safety savior: Hay.
"In a week, we could choke O157 from its favorite home," Planck wrote. "Even if beef cattle were switched to a forage diet just seven days before slaughter, it would greatly reduce cross-contamination by manure of hamburger in meat-packing plants. Such a measure might have prevented the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that plagued the Jack in the Box fast food chain in 1993."
And you thought we were past such simplistic exaggerations.
At the time the Cornell study was published, better brains than mine dissected the research from a number of angles, basically concluding that the media's interpretation that grain is the cause of the E. coli O157:H7 problem was impractical, incomplete and inaccurate.
For one, the Cornell researchers were studying "generic" E. coli, not the pathogenic O15:H7 strain. More importantly, a University of Idaho research team just months later experimentally dosed Holstein steers with E. coli O157:H7 and found that the animals harbored the pathogen longer while being fed a hay diet than a grain-based diet similar to feedlot finishing rations. That Idaho study also showed no difference between grain or hay in acid resistance of E. coli O157:H7 found in cattle feces.
At the same time, a group of Washington State University scientists charged that the Cornell study had "gaping holes" in its design and data, and that it should have been subjected to more stringent peer review before it was made public.
Other scientists' research results were contrary to the Cornell conclusion, the WSU team noted, pointing to studies showing no difference in E. coli populations between grass-fed and feedlot cattle. They also expressed concern that a rapid switch in diets could cause metabolic distress, increasing the chance that E. coli O157:H7 would be shed in feces and end up on the hide of the animal at the packing plant.
You find that kind of nuance in most discussions about the relationship of cattle diets — even among scientists.
About three years ago, I happened to be chatting with the veterinary office attached to Australia's U.S. consulate. Since there had never been an E. coli O157:H7 in that country, many critics claim that the grass-based diet of cattle Down Under is proof that grain feeding is the smoking gun.
"We never had an [E. coli O157:H7] outbreak in our country," he said.
"Have you surveyed cattle populations to see if the pathogen is present?" I asked.
He answered, "We don't need to, mate."
Nor do those who already "know" the answer to the food-safety challenge of E. coli O15:H7 need to reason any further. The conclusions drawn by Planck and others who leap to the simplistic conclusion that feeding grain to cattle "created" O157:H7, and that a magical switch from grain to forage — as if that were even possible — would solve the problem are way off the mark.
But like it or not, the meat industry is implicated in the fallout from this current outbreak. As Planck phrased it, "California's spinach industry is now the financial victim of an outbreak it probably did not cause. So give the spinach growers a break, and direct your attention to the people in our agricultural community who just might be able to solve this deadly problem: beef and dairy farmers."
According to her, E. coli doesn't grow on spinach.
Unfortunately for the industry, solutions to the scientific and PR challenges surrounding E. coli O157:H7 aren't exactly growing on trees, either.
Dan Murphy is a freelance writer and former editor of MMT magazine based in the Pacific Northwest . His column, THE VOCAL POINT, appears in this space each Friday.
 
Top