Banner
    Like E. Coli? Enjoy Organic Food
    By Hank Campbell | June 1st 2011 02:36 PM | 40 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    While Europeans trade blame about the E. coli contamination that has killed 14 people and made hundreds sick, one factoid is left out of most news stories - you're far more likely to get E. coli from food in organic supermarkets, where European governments are now sending inspectors to try and contain the risk.

    Anti-science progressives have waged a decade-long war on genetically-modified food but, to-date, not so much as a single stomach ache has been caused by any modified vegetables, with 400 million people having eaten GMOs, while persistent outbreaks in E. coli correspond to increases in organic food claims that it is nutritionally superior or better in any way at all than ordinary farm-raised food, despite numerous studies showing the opposite.   The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has refused to recognize "organic" food as distinguishable in any way from any other food, except in growing process, because it simply isn't.

    If E. coli is not to your liking, you can also enjoy pyrethrin, one of several common toxic chemicals sprayed on fruit trees by organic farmers, rotenone, a neurotoxin recently linked to Parkinson's disease, ricin and strychnine - all natural and all organic and all allowed in organic food.

    Pesticides are bad enough but what about fertilizer?   'Organic' fertilizer is, of course, feces, and that is what is making all those Europeans sick.  Synthetic fertilizer does not contain bacteria of any kind.

    The carcinogens in every cup of 'organic' coffee include acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, furan, furfural, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol, styrene, and toluene.  What's the catch?  Well, those are in every cup of non-organic coffee too - there is no difference and there is a 1 in 100,000 chance coffee can give you cancer.

    I am not contending you blindly let Monsanto determine your well-being, I am not a conservative shill for big business; if my wife would allow it nothing that touches my family would not be grown, killed, cleaned and cooked by my hands alone - but from a science point of view, anyone advocating 'organic' food is selling something as surely as Monsanto is.

    Comments

    I wouldn't go so far saying that genetically-modified food doesn't cause a stomach ace. I have a theory that because we are messing with genetics of foods and plants; we are messing with foods that we were able to break down in our digestive system and increasingly creating super foods that we are not able to digest. Notice the increase of Gluten/Wheat allergies lately? A lot of times E.Coli is caused by careless pickers/handlers who decide to go the bathroom in the middle of the field and/or didn't manage to wash their hands after going to the bathroom. Personally I believe the there should be a strict rule about what could be considered organic and what does not. Organic should mean: No pesticides, herbacides, genetically modified foods, hormones, etc. Basically what comes from the seed with no alterations what so ever, using nothing that may enhance it's growth unless it is identified as unaltered soil, sun, and water. Also like all food handling, there does need to be a better watch on hand to make sure things are sanitary. If all fails... If in doubt... wash the food.

    UvaE
    It's amazing how much mythology surrounds organic farming. Yesterday I had a discussion with someone who was surprised by the fact that he had few allergic reactions this spring. I proposed that it may be linked to the week of continuous rain we had shortly after some trees pollinated. Indeed the weather channel has been reporting low pollen counts. But he was convinced that it was the switch to organic food that was responsible.
    Hank
    Anom,
    we are messing with foods that we were able to break down in our digestive system and increasingly creating super foods that we are not able to digest. 
    So millions of years of spontaneous mutations in our food caused by deep-space cosmic rays are just fine because they are 'natural' yet making precise changes to an organism's DNA will harm us in some way in the future?  I am not buying it.

    Enrico,
     Indeed the weather channel has been reporting low pollen counts. But he was convinced that it was the switch to organic food that was responsible
    Because organic food can do anything.   :)


    Gerhard Adam
    So millions of years of spontaneous mutations in our food caused by deep-space cosmic rays are just fine because they are 'natural' yet making precise changes to an organism's DNA will harm us in some way in the future?
    I agree with you, but I also have some other concerns as well.  There is a difference between "natural" and "artificial", although it isn't nearly as specific as some of the mythology suggests.  Biology is far too dynamic to ever consider that any modification is "precise" beyond the moment at which it occurs.  Random modifications from cosmic rays will affect individual plants and depending on the population (and environment), such modifications may or may not become fixed.  With genetic modifications, we are bypassing that step and modifying entire populations which essentially represents a new "base" for the organism's genetics.  From this base, we can expect additional mutations (i.e. natural) to still occur, although now we are in a different circumstance than we would've been with normal evolution.  This doesn't mean that it will become harmful, but it could have many unforeseen downstream affects that we can't even begin to gauge.

    We don't know whether such modifications could be transferred to other plants (unintended) by other mechanisms, nor do we fully understand (and may never understand) the inter-relationship between all the microbes and other organisms that are associated with these plants that may also become subjected to selection pressures.  So, ultimately the problem is that we can never just change one thing, when it comes to biology.  We will always be changing multiples of organisms for which we have done little or no planning, largely because we don't know.

    I'm certainly not predicting doom and gloom, but it is quite likely that 40-50 years down the road, we may discover that there are unintended events that have occurred because of such modifications.  You're right, that we could just as readily be subjected to significant changes through cosmic ray initiated mutations, but (as I mentioned previously) that's a much less likely scenario over the short-term. 

    Much more likely, we may find that some of these modifications are perfectly fine, but they may suddenly deviate in major ways in different environmental circumstances for which we haven't planned.  All in all, I'm a bit more cautious about how good an idea a lot of this is.


    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    High energy cosmic rays are known to be able to break chromosomes into pieces that can reattach randomly and even create genes that didn't previously exist.  I don't see how making subtle changes intentionally can be worse than leaving it to 'nature', especially when the intentional changes can mitigate real issues like hunger and global warming.
    Gerhard Adam
     I don't see how making subtle changes intentionally can be worse than leaving it to 'nature'...
    Because "nature" tends to avoid change, so even when it is introduced it is generally lost and takes much more "effort" for it to become fixed in a population.  Intentional changes immediately fix such changes in a population, so it is fundamentally different.

    "Nature" proceeds slowly because there are so many factors that are involved, that most often, such changes will be detrimental and never become established.  Such changes may allow for co-evolution, may drive some dependent species to extinction, etc.  However when changes are rapid and fixed, we don't know how this will affect others that may be equally dependent, so once again, it is a fundamentally different process that doesn't reflect back on how it occurs "naturally".

    I can appreciate that "natural" is often abused with respect to "artificial", but in this case, there is a real difference between the two processes.
    Mundus vult decipi
    vongehr
    What Gerhard points out I think is that natural random mutations have to first successfully pass through natural selection (inside an environment that we are well adapted to) before it hits our stomachs in any quantity, and if there is some mismatch, we also co-evolve slowly (like Westerners have different livers due to centuries of alcohol consumption and suchlike). This step is completely missing with GM. Whether this is a big thing or nothing - well, I was once convinced it is nothing, and it is probably nothing, but I am a lot less sure the more weird, counter intuitive processes are found in modern evolution theory. We humans are surprisingly stupid especially whenever we are cock sure.
    I can see where scientificly modified plants growing in places where they couldn't grow before would help hunger, but how would they have an impact on globel warming?

    UvaE
    The carcinogens in every cup of 'organic' coffee include acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, furan, furfural, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol, styrene, and toluene. What's the catch? Well, those are in every cup of non-organic coffee too - there is no difference and there is a 1 in 100,000 chance coffee can give you cancer.

    d-Limonene(also found in oranges) is a group 3 carcinogen. Chemicals in this category don't cause cancer in humans even though large doses bring about tumours in some lab animals.

    When it comes to cancer and chemicals the public often gets confused because:

    (1) there is often no clear-cut threshold or concentration of a chemical in the environment above which cancer "kicks" in.

    (2) there is confusion over "natural" versus "artificial". For example, synthetic d-limonene is no more dangerous than the orange fruit version. Potent carcinogens exist among both natural and artificial substances. Wood dust poses a real occupational hazard among carpenters who don't use masks while sawing. They are at a higher risk for nasal cancer.

    (3) the previously mentioned categories are crucial but probability kicks in and makes things more difficult for the average person to grasp. Benzene is a category 1 carcinogen(proven carcinogen in humans), which means it's a lot more dangerous than d-limonene. But even at that, the concentration plays a role in determining how likely a cancer will arise. For example,

    "The estimated excess lifetime risk of leukemia for the average urban Australian, due to the estimated 24-hour average lifetime exposure of 5.2 parts per billion, is one per 10,000 population, or 1.2 per cent of the lifetime risk of contracting leukaemia of any cause (http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=NB02082.pdf)

    Organic may be deadlier but it does taste better. Everyone knows that excessive growth in non-organic food is simply the vegetable hoarding water to increase its sale weight. But I am grateful to the blog author for rightly pointing out the pesticides/poisons used by organic farmers - my mum, an organic devotee, wrongly thinks those chemicals are absent.

    Hank
    If I submit any human to a blind taste test and ask them to identify which food is organic, they couldn't do it.  What they would do, if they are a foodie who believes organic is better, is say whichever one tastes better is organic. 

    The human tongue has between 11 and 1,100 taste buds per square inch and those are impacted by the bunching of the different kinds and even things like calcium channels.   You also likely know that taste is physical but flavor is a combination of things that don't involve the tongue.

    This and repeated exposure is why you can drink a Coca-Cola in Bulgaria and you may not like the flavor of it, but you may love the flavor in Bath or someplace else.   So it goes with food - there are too many things that go into flavor to say that strawberry A tastes better because it was grown on one farm or only has a mix of 50 inorganic ingredients in its processing and strawberry B tastes worse just because it was grown on a different farm and has different inorganic ingredients.

    If your mum is growing the food herself, she mostly knows what's in it, tacit effects aside - if she is buying it at a so-called organic farmer's market and she does not know the farmer and has visited the farm, she is being educated by advertising.   Because it's your mum's food, and you know she goes organic, you may also just like it better.    Or you have lousy corporate farm food and really good locally grown organic food.  Hard to say, but the organic process is not the reason.  
    The real problem is that we're feeding our cows with corn. Grassfed animals have far fewer E. Coli than grain fed animals (20,000 cells/g. vs. 6,300,000 cells/g.) That's a huge difference. Furthermore, the few bacteria they do have are not likely to survive the natural acidity of our digestive tract. This is because they have not become acid-resistant like the E. coli found in grainfed beef. So my question would be: where did that German organic farm get its manure? Europe doesn't have much grazing room, so I would think they would be even more susceptible to raising cows in factory style on a grain based diet.

    GM that has been unleashed on the public has in generally NEVER been tested, it is being tested on the public.
    When testing has taken place the findings are buried if they show it is deadly. Like the tests done in Scotland by a team or respected and highly qualified scientists.Tthey found that a strain of GM potatos was deadly, causing multi organ failure in rats and they went public. Their reward was to be sacked and then vilified by the government who employed them and the quisling media.
    In another set of tests the componant parts of a gm plant were tested in isolation and then tested when combined and they were only found to cause damage to rats when combined in a GM product.
    GM is probably the greatest threat to human health that has ever existed and yet because of government corruption it is being forced on the masses.
    GM companies are behind the move to ban the sale of thousands of seed vareties, they have been actively buying health food chains, buying seed producers and lobbying(bribing) to have organic and health products banned or limited. In Mexico GM corn is banned yet GM strains mysteriously appear growing on road sides thereby contaminating crops making them property of the GM strain manufacturer, the same criminal method may be behind the convenient appearance of an antibiotic resistance strain of E coli in an organic farm.
    If you want to know how the E coli got there then look at the people shouting loudest about having organic food censured.
    The GM industry is in collusion with the pharamceutical multinationals and the intention is to own all food production, turning farmers and consumers into little more than slaves, and to create disease by means of forced medication and by forcing toxic and lethal GM foods on the totality of humanity.
    Statins have already been mooted to be the next item to be genetically added to wheat, the same Statins that are known to deplete Co-enzyme Q10, the Co-enzyme Q10 supplement that governments have been moving to restrict access to, the same Q10 that is known to cause heart attacks when depleted. As one good doctor pointed out, Statins are cheaper than pensions, his reward for that was to be struck off. Yet we hear of ideas like adding Statins to drinking water, adding Statins to bread & even selling GM corn which has been modified to create Statins.
    Soon there wont be any alternative when the corrupt scum at the top decide to do this, no organic, no pesticide sprayed food, just poison masquerading as food & I'll guarantee you wont be getting you pension then.

    Hank
    I've found that people who use the term "multinationals" as shorthand a lot also use the term "meds" as shorthand a lot.

    Anyway, that worthy cultural tome "Team America: World Police" said it more succinctly than you did.  Here is Tim Robbins of the Film Actors Guild but I posted his thoughts below and left the important parts blank so you can copy and paste in the future:

    "Let me explain to you how this works. You see, the corporations finance _______. And then _______  goes out and the corporations sit there in their, in their corporation buildings and, and and see that's, they're all corporationy, and they make money."

    Gerhard Adam
    What I want to know is what the aliens are doing with the missing energy from the LHC.  Since the magnetic poles seem to be weakening and poised for a reversal, I suspect the GM foods are intended to help those loaded into Arks to avoid the next major extinction when the sun's radiation decimates all life on Earth.

    After all, it should be clear that GM foods are being tested to ensure their viability for when we colonize Mars to avoid the destruction of Earth.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Except it isn't fantasy or the loony based speculation of paranoid delusions, cold facts back up the assertion that there is government collusion and criminality on a massive scale in the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
    Obviously there are various wild claims attached to the factual evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that corporations are now acting more like mafia than anything else and their influence on regulatory bodies and government is such that it now poses the greatest threat to human health and liberty that we have ever seen.
    Corporations now run governments, internationally policy is set by subterfuge and corruption, it no longer has anything to do with public interest, it is everything to do with profit. This has nothing to do with capitalism, because capitalism has nothing to do with overt criminality.
    Mockery of a very serious subject changes little, we are heading for a real wake up call and it will come in the form of a global catastophy the like of which we have never seen, simply because the players in this game act utterly without morals. Governments internationally are all making the same moves to prohibit alternative health products & to promote & permit GM food, while at the same time GM producers are buying seed companies & limiting access to seed variation.
    The intention is to leave humanity with no choices, with GM food being our only option due to cross contamination, the very thing we were promised would not happen & yet here it is happening.
    Once food is contaninated the health implications will be unavoidable, & just as with Statins, where the effect on Coenzyme Q10 was known prior to patents being issued, the health effects of GM are also known by the manufacturers. Just as with soya, a plant which hardly ever registered as an allergen prior to the introduction of GM soya & yet it is now a major allergen. From the list of known issues arising from soya use, including early puberty, lowered sperm count, heart issues and especially thyroid disfunction, we can only now guess what role genetic engineering has played in the misery and death caused by it's ingestion. And that is singularly thanks to the corruption that led to its being released onto the market untested and classed as a foodstuff by the same corrupt government officials who are meant to protect us.
    These are crimes against humanity and those guilty will one day soon reap the consequences of their actions.

    Gerhard Adam
    These are crimes against humanity and those guilty will one day soon reap the consequences of their actions.
    Yeah, I'm glad you cleared that up.
    Mundus vult decipi
    You've mastered the art of saying nothing whilst floating on a raft of pomposity in a sea of your own ignorance, which is no mean feat.
    When someone talks about real events and actual factual criminal behavior and your response is to act like a retarded child, what your arrogance prevents you from seeing is just what a failure you appear to be to any casual observer.
    It's a plain fact that statins are known to kill and the dangers they pose are widely accepted by most honest and decent doctors, a rare breed I admit.
    It's a plain fact that test after test has shown GM food to be extremely dangerous in lab tests and it's a fact that it has been released untested on the public.
    It's also a fact that soya was not a major allergen prior to the release of GM strains.
    It's also a fact that food and drug regulatory bodies are populated by former corporate employees and that time after time governments act to protect or further the interests of these self same companies.
    It is a fact that the research conducted by Árpád Pusztai showed clearly that GM potatos were damaging to the intestines and immune system of rats and he was deliberately vilified by order of the UK government in collusion with US counterparts, despite the fact the he is a world renowned scientist and had the direct support of 21 other leading figures. The obvious purpose of discrediting him was to supress the reality of the dangers posed by GM food crops.
    If all you have to say to factual statements is rambling drivel, designed to imply that this is all conspiracy lunacy then either you are a complete cretin seeking attention, or you are genuinely so infantile that you resort to childish rambling when faced with facts that challenge your delusional state of mind, or in some way you work in one of the corrupt sectors that are now the blight of humanity.
    But then the reason you have nothing to rebuff with is because there is no reply you can give, to engage would require evidence and you have none, so all you have is childish ridicule & any casual observer will see that you are either ignorant or deliberately trying to deflect and mislead, it's laughable really.
    Like I said before the day of reckoning is coming, simply because there are now countless millions who are being directly affected by corporate criminality, like the victims of the ban on Armor, the victims of countless toxic med, the victims of GM foods, an army of people who are educating the public as to the real nature of our systems of government and corporate criminal collusion. When the day comes where GM foods cause a real disaster , and as night follows day it will happen, when that day comes the masses will know exactly who is at fault and the world wont be big enough for any of the guilty to hide in.
    No conspiracies, no aliens, nothing except criminals, mafia in white coats, genocidal murderers posing as saviors who for profit enslave and kill with abandon.
    So laugh on, either as a moron or as a perp, it makes no difference.

    Gerhard Adam
    Are you truly so stupid that you think that you can come onto a site as an anonymous poster, raise a rant about global conspiracy and murder, and provide no data, nor links to information ... and you'll be taken seriously?

    Get over yourself.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Yeah, you guys will probably think I'm the "conspiracy theorist" for saying this, but I'm not, I'm the guy that wrote about the number of e coli cells in the manure of grain fed cows. I do have to say that I disagree very much with Hank Campbell's and Gerhard Adam's "argument" to debunk the anonymous user that's "ranting." It basically amounts to name calling in order to avoid a discussion of the information the user has brought up. That's the worst kind of cop out. Even worse than an appeal to authority to legitimize a claim (Logic 101: "any argument that rests on who provides some evidence, rather than on the content of the evidence"). Why not give evidence that suggests the anonymous user is wrong? Like: "there is no such thing as a lobbying group, so clearly the Government is not in bed with your so-called multi-nationals". Obviously that is a false statement. But does the fact that there are corporate lobbyists who contribute enormous sums of money to our political representatives essentially sway our politicians' votes? Do they really vote in our interests?
    To get back on track: the creation of GMOs to give certain plants the ability to naturally protect themselves can reduce the amount of pesticides used. I'm in favor of this, since we depend so much on certain insects (bees) to transfer the dna from one vegetable plant to another, and pesticides indiscriminately kill bees, as well. So I'm not really saying that we shouldn't have GMOs, but I don't like you guys have conducted yourselves.

    Hank
    A person can't come to a science site and insist cosmic rays breaking chromosomes and mutating genes randomly is good but precisely modifying known genes to have an intended effect - like being able to grow in bad climates, need less fertilizer or need fewer pesticides - is wrong and say "just because" and then invoke hysteria about corporations being all corporation-y without getting some ridicule.  Mindless gibberish is for political sites.

    Corporations are corporations.   They all pay lobbyists.   I don't see a distinction between an environmental corporation exaggerating and manipulating data to raise money as superior to Monsanto when it comes to paying people to get Congress to see things their way.   Anyone who thinks there is moral superiority in one over the other had that position long before reading this.
    Gerhard Adam
    To get back on track: the creation of GMOs to give certain plants the ability to naturally protect themselves can reduce the amount of pesticides used.
    OK, for a more serious consideration, this is my problem with this.  If a plant "naturally" protects itself from pests, what is the mechanism by which we intend to prevent co-evolution of the pest?  We've been down this path with antibiotics and were "shocked" when we discovered that bacteria weren't static organisms but they evolved to cope with the drugs.  What scientific data do we have that something similar won't happen to pests which will make the problem orders of magnitude worse than it currently is?


    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard Adam
    Gerhard Adam's "argument" to debunk the anonymous user that's "ranting."
    I'm not debunking the anonymous poster.  I'm biting my tongue to avoid just calling him an idiot.
    Why not give evidence that suggests the anonymous user is wrong?
    How do you give evidence to statements like this:
    "No conspiracies, no aliens, nothing except criminals, mafia in white coats, genocidal murderers posing as saviors who for profit enslave and kill with abandon."
    We're talking about an individual that is arguably unstable.  If someone wants to have a serious discussion about the influence of lobbying, or the issue of patents on living organisms, or on the testing of GM foods, or on the implications of co-evolution and unintended consequences ... then let's go for it.  However, if the only point is to rant about being a helpless victim against some world-wide conspiracy that is bent on murdering all of humanity while they sip wine and look at the impaled victims on the road to the capitol .... no thanks, I'll pass.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    After saying it was German organic sprouts in the E. coli scare, then it wasn't German organic  sprouts, Germans are back to saying it was German organic sprouts.
    Reinhard Burger, president of the Robert Koch Institute, said even though no tests of the sprouts from an organic farm in Lower Saxony had come back positive for the E. coli strain behind the outbreak, an investigation into the pattern of the outbreak had produced enough evidence to draw the conclusion.
    Which tells you everything you need to know about Germany's ability to investigate anything.
    Wrong Wrong Wrong! The E. coli outbreak is not due to feces. the sprout farm uses NO FECAL MATTER. The chemicals you mentioned are not allowed in organic certified farming. - These arguments are all convoluted and backwards and fact-less.

    Please do some homework and cite your sources when making claims like this.

    Hank
    To begin with, raw sprouts are only eaten by hippies in the western world who don't know any better - despite feeling all Asian-y I have never met a single Asian who would eat them raw.   Next, saying that any "organic" product is grown without fertilizer is a silly assertion.    You have never been on a farm, clearly, and just because your Whole Foods store does not have actual feces on it does not mean it does not have bacteria.

    Lastly, I can provide a list of 60 completely synthetic ingredients allowed in 'certified organic' food, you can also find them yourself by doing a simple search here.   You have been educated by advertising, not science.    You keep on killing innocent people with your bizarre worldview but science will find ways to feed them safely.
    Essentially, it seems the packaging of "organic" sprouts in which they found the e.coli bacteria, was in the garbage can of the sickened people, and had been there a long time totally opened for days.

    http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110611-35603.html

    A food can no longer be professionally test as a source for the source of bacteria after it's been contaminated by a garbage container, and certainly cannot be called "organic" anymore.

    The corporate-dominated TV media in the U.S.A. is spreading this propanganda, that "organic sprouts" are to blame.
    This is consistent with the American Agribusiness and FrankenFood Industry's enduring organized campaign of putting "Organic" and "E.Coli" in the same sentence.

    The "organic" sprout farm was inspected and found to be spotlessly clean and this e.coli was NOT found. The farm is not being charged with anything.

    Please do a little research before you accept such hogwash.

    Hank
    Raw sprouts are dangerous and everything you wrote affirms my point; 'organic' is a marketing hoax and there are zero instances of 'inorganic' food "packaging" giving people E. coli.
    Gerhard Adam
    A food can no longer be professionally test as a source for the source of bacteria after it's been contaminated by a garbage container, and certainly cannot be called "organic" anymore.
    Are you suggesting that E.Coli O104 is so common that it would be detected in anyone's garbage?  In addition, the food is still "organic" regardless of where it is found, although I would agree that it probably isn't edible.  After all, regardless of what was in the garbage, and regardless of what the sprouts might be exposed to in the garbage; E. Coli O104 isn't a normal candidate.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I am suggesting nothing - "just the facts, mam" - whatever sickened this poor soul was probably in the garbage can with the package of open sprouts. If one knows anything about biology, that could have infected anything in the garbage can. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but for a neo-conservative, that might be a something of a challenge.

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually if you know anything about biology, you'll also know that since this is a specific pathogen, then it isn't simply prevalent in the environment.  These people got sick specifically by eating a specific food with a very specific and rare bacteria.  For it to show up in the bean sprouts (garbage or not) is quite specific and significant.  You can dress it up how you like, but you can't simply wave your arms around and suggest some non-specific source for this infection by claiming "garbage".

    I will admit ... it's one of the few times I've ever been considered a neo-con.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    Not me.  Neo-con is currently leading commie-pinko 212 to 206.
    Gerhard Adam
    See ... that's just silly.  I think you're actually an anarchist (not the antichrist).
    Mundus vult decipi
    I didn't call you a neo-conservative, per se, but if you accept that definition as applying to yourself, then so-be-it.

    Gerhard Adam
    Perhaps next time you might indicate that you're simply posting something to the internet at large, so that I don't confuse your posts with being directed as a response.  Of course, if you hadn't intended to call me a neo-con, then I can accept the fact that you might be subject to uncontrolled bouts of random typing .... so be it.
    Mundus vult decipi
    You are really making this more complicated than it is.
    Whatever sickened this poor soul was probably in the garbage can with the package of open sprouts. If one knows anything about biology, that could have infected anything in the garbage can. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but for a neo-conservative who doesn't quite grasp what "organic" is, that might be a something of a mental challenge.

    Gerhard Adam
    OK, let me spell it out for you.

    1.  Organic has nothing to do with it.  It's infected with E. Coli.  The ONLY question is the source of the E. Coli.

    2.  Organic is not exempt from such contamination.  If you think otherwise, then you are deluded.

    3.  If E. Coli O104 was present on the bean sprouts, then it was introduced in some fashion.  However, to suggest that it was through the contents of the garbage can, then you would have to find a higher concentration elsewhere in the garbage.  To simply argue for cross contamination is denying the obvious.

    It is clear that you know little about raising food or growing food.  You seem to think that "organic" is some magic elixir for a "natural" diet.  Both are wrong, and if you don't pay attention, both will kill you just as readily if it isn't grown or prepared properly.  You can talk about "certifications" all you like, but in the end, it can still go wrong, and it can still be deadly.

    Mundus vult decipi
    Hey Hank, how about even one link to some information substantiating your claim that organic food is responsible for e-coli poisonings? I seem to recall that most of the cases to date have happened in chain-store food shops that never serve an organic item and markets that keep the items well seperated. Also what is to prevent modified foods from picking up e-coli as you suggest? Has Monsanto or NK added another modified gene to prevent that and not told us about it either? We need some information other than what seems to be your private rant in favor of Frankenfoods. Oh, BTW, if it’s bad for the DNA chains to be modified by nature what makes you feel that it being done by man makes it better? I have yet to see a job description stating looking for such classifications as Apprenticed to Mother Nature for 5 Years to study the effects of modifying plant genes with chemical and/or radiation washes. Nature’s way has gotten us this far why do you think a bunch of book hacks can make it better?

    Gerhard Adam
    Wow, you seem to be all over the board on this.  I included the links in the previous post.  However, E Coli has nothing to do with the GMO's so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.  But nevertheless it seems like you want to suddenly venture over into the GMO discussion.  Again, you don't seem to actually have an argument beyond claiming that somehow if nature kills you that's better than being killed artificially. 
    Oh, BTW, if it’s bad for the DNA chains to be modified by nature what makes you feel that it being done by man makes it better?
    Not quite sure what to make of that reasoning.  Although your next jump into an apprenticeship for Mother Nature is quite ironic since that is actually what one might consider people that actually study nature.  So, while I readily concede that there is much that we don't know in biology, I have to consider that an individual that spends years educating themselves and then studying and researching in the field has more of an "apprenticeship" that you possess to level the criticism.
    Nature’s way has gotten us this far why do you think a bunch of book hacks can make it better?
    Now that statement is just stupid.  The fact that you're even typing those comments using a technology that "nature" certainly hasn't provided says you need to settle down and think before you say something even sillier.

    I'm very much a fan of "nature", but I'm also not foolish enough to believe that "nature" is my friend.  I am just as useful to "nature" walking around or as food to some other creature.  There literally is no preference from "nature" in that respect. 

    I understand that it has become chic to consider "nature" as "our Mother" and something that will support our lives.  Don't kid yourself.  That attitude will turn you into worm food faster than almost anything else.  Nature is to be respected and doesn't suffer fools gladly.
    Mundus vult decipi