Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

I agree with the sentiment that the original Op-Ed piece was neither alarmist nor biased. I think the point of it was to highlight the fact that raising pigs outdoors will increase the prevalence of various pathogens they are likely to encounter in the environment, which is why they were moved indoors in the first place. The increased risk to the human consumer may be negliglible, but it is increased nonetheless.

Ultimately I think that it is much more important to look at how confined pork production (along with most industrial ag techniques) may be responsible for the rise of MRSA. It is, I think, also good to note that there are two fairly distinct strains of MRSA -- "community acquired" and "hospital acquired." The hospital acquired strain results from the rampant use of antibiotics in hospitals, and I suspect it is responsible for the vast majority of MRSA-associated deaths due to the high-risk population one finds in a hospital. But the community acquired strain is most likely much much more prevalent, with most carriers having no infection. Staph aureus (the SA in MRSA) is, after all, the most common type of bacteria found on human skin. It is far more likely that the spread of MRSA is due to human-human transmission, and it is very unlikely to be a food-borne pathogen (as opposed to Salmonella, E. coli, trichinosis, etc.).

So if I am worried about whether *this* piece of pork will make me sick if I eat it, chances are the pork from a pig raised outdoors will be "less safe" than the one raised indoors. The risk is probably less than that of me getting sick from eating raw egg, raw fish/shellfish, and medium-cooked burgers, but I do all of those with reckless abandon. If I am worried about the epidemiologic and public health consequences of raising pigs certain ways, then it is clear that confined, go go antibiotics, industrial methods are far, far riskier.

"I've never seen a square fish."

The logical response, of course, is that I've never seen a circular cow.

Somehow this sounds like a cross-contamination nightmare to me.

@jpschust:

Therefore it's ok to treat them poorly?

Wait, what does this entry have to do with cheese?

In my mind, there are actually two different issues. 1) Is foie gras production cruel or not? 2) Should foie gras production be banned?

I find it somewhat amazing how anybody could really think about the issue and not conclude that its humaneness is questionable at best. I agree that it should not be banned, since banning things is (clearly) polarizing and counter-productive. But the argument that there are many worse practices out there is in no way a point in favor of foie gras.

Also, people love to say that the AVMA and AAAP have concluded that foie gras production is not cruel. This is patently false. In fact, the AVMA has merely refused to take a stance one way or the other. I am not aware of an official stance taken by the AAAP (there is nothing on their web site). Anyone who is interested should read a recently released "backgrounder" on foie gras production on the AVMA website here: http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/foie_gras_bgnd.asp.

They spend a good deal of time discussing the potential animal welfare problems associated with foie gras, including references to the majority of studies out there, although in their summary they conclude that more and better controlled studies are necessary. This is a convenient way to remain neutral on the issue, since nobody in their right minds will fund those studies.