Inside Chipotle’s Contamination Crisis
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I grew up on a farm in Central Texas. We fertilized our vegetables fields with sheep manure. From our sheep.
I drank raw milk from a dairy down the road, pre-pasturization. It was wonderful stuff. The cream would rise to the top, and my mom would skim some of it off for coffee, but often we would just shake it up and drink it.
Until I moved to NYC last June, I still spent a lot of time on that farm with my family, eating vegetables and fruits fertilized by feces, eating sheep and chickens that I slaughtered myself, eating eggs right from the chickens with the detritus of chicken vag still on them. (yeah, you would rinse the eggs a little, but probably not enough to get rid of anything serious. The rinsing was purely cosmetic.)
My family runs a situation that I wouldn't call either organic, nor safe by any standards. They call it mutually beneficial.
The sheep eat the grass, then the sheep poop on the garden, the garden grows and is healthy. The chickens wander around the garden and eat the bugs that tend to eat the produce. The chickens also poop on the garden.
The chickens lay eggs that we mostly eat, and the ones we don't turn into more chickens. Sometimes we eat the chickens; sometimes we eat the sheep. Sometimes the eggs don't hatch, and we shoot them for target practice.
Anyway, my point is this: Not a single one of us has ever gotten sick from this scenario. I'm not suggesting that it's scalable or sustainable at all. Just that it hasn't been a problem for us.
I think it's interesting to note that a lot of people who go to my parent's farm from places like L.A. or Chicago or NYC do, in fact have digestive problems. I'll be curious to find out after a year or two in NYC if I have problems when I go home.
It isn't unreasonable for multiple things to be going on here.
There's an idea that because the vast majority of people live in urban areas and are not biologically equipped to handle natural food doesn't mean that really natural food is bad.
It might just mean that our bodies' adapt over time.
On the other hand, I get the point that the way of doing things that my family does is definitely not sustainable. Hell, we spend as much or more buying feed for the animals as we would just buying the stuff we eat there.
And that's using 43 acres for 30-something head of sheep and maybe 25 hens. And only maybe 20 acres for vegetables.
That's not even enough for a family of 5.
Though, I have to say, as proud as I am to be a part of Brooklyn, I'm probably a little more proud of my 96-year-old dad for managing that farm and taking care of all of it every day.
Especially in that crazy heat.
You should be, that's very impressive.
Anyone doing it at that age though is nonetheless impressive.
Well, yes, it probably would be normal for many people to not see a doctor. That's why there's been extensive campaigns on, for example, "Be Clear on Cancer" asking people who see blood in their stool to talk to a doctor.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-its-f...
To me this suggests a very simple solution. Legislate that each ingredient parcel must come with an audit trail. Assign to each parcel a reference number - a UUID or hash - that can be used to trace back its entire life and history. The solution seems so obvious that there are probably significant obstacles against doing so that I am not aware of. If such a system is implemented, then the next time a contamination breaks out, the source can be quickly identified and eliminated, then apologies can be made, and business can resume as normal.
>> The spread of norovirus in Simi Valley and Boston was caused by breaches of protocol, Ells says
Eliminating contamination entirely is a highly desirable goal, but outbreaks will likely continue occur regardless of anti-contamination measures. As a result, it makes sense to make it as easy as possible to shut down outbreaks before they become crises.
Seriously though, where does the hash/uuid get added? The farmer? How many people will be against tracking your food and saying this violates peoples freedoms.
I wonder if it's something that affects lower income groups more.
(Also, the annual total sick-from-foodborne-illness count is an estimate, the sick-from-the-Chipotle-outbreak count is confirmed.)
http://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/irradiation_danger...
EDIT: rspeer, fair request..
> The sensitivity of vitamins to radiation is unpredictable and food vitamin losses during the irradiation are often substantial. [0]
> Using a Co60 source, repeated irradiation of survivors of bacterial cultures at a level initially destroying a high proportion of cells gave rise to strains which were more resistant to irradiation than the original cultures.[1]
> Fecal coliform concentrations higher than 10(2) CFU/g (Brazilian standard) were found in 97 (73%) of the samples, and Salmonella was detected in 4 (3%) of the samples.[2]
0: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516...
1: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/m61-027
2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536694
---
> a blatant agenda
Here's a couple more in-depth articles on food irradiation to review his bias and see if you can trust his info in the future:
What's up next? Chemtrails?
Edit to add : Mr Mercola and his ilk is one of the most aggressive and virulent antivaxers.
The articles that aren't fringe bullshit are actually pretty well done.
Unfortunately, for every legitimate article on his site, there's a "microwaves destroy food" and "cell phones eat your soul" type of article.
tl;dr: I'd use Mercola as a secondary link backing up more legitimate primary links, but I wouldn't base my entire argument on them.
What's wrong with these people?
It's a bit shocking people would find it natural to bleed for several days before seeking medical help. On any country with universal healthcare this would be much less consequential, as the patient would be readily treated and the consequences would be largely diminished.
"sustainable, self regulating, environmentally friendly fish farm"
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with...
I said your comment was unsubstantive (not 'unsubstantiated') because it didn't contain any information, just a snarky putdown of hypothetical other users. Such a comment is merely a status move and those are always uninteresting, despite their popularity.
GMOs are a better solution, we can agree on that.
Accelerated breeding programs to, for example, use genes from one Nightshade in another, and then use a standard hybridization process to further select desirable traits without harming the viability of the plant (which, for futher example, many tomato and pepper breeds are simply shitty plants that require a lot of trellising and other tender loving care to produce a useful yield) is the better solution.
Also, another very useful solution that small time farmers deploy is using predator species (bugs, nematodes, other things that eat or otherwise stop harmful bugs), or planting companion crops, such as basil and onions and garlic alongside tomatoes and peppers to deter common pests.
(Although looking at the long term share history, he's still up on the deal).
So, perhaps they use superior ingredients but it's immaterial if at the end of the day their food safety suffers. Additionally, it points out that on a good day, local (within 350 miles) supplies only account for 10% of their ingredients and they tend not to advertise the fact that they use the same supply chain economies of scale whereby their beans, meats and salsas are prepared by third parties then shipped to restaurants.
I think its more accurate to say that Chipotle makes a big deal about how its ingredients follow the latest food fashion trends.
>"Contrary to popular wisdom, organic produce is not pesticide-free. Instead, it’s grown with primitive pesticides that can be significantly more hazardous to humans and to the environment. Organic agriculture also lacks the benefits of the many crops genetically improved with modern molecular techniques, like Bt-corn, which reduces the population of insects that allow toxic molds to infest corn. (Organic corn has higher levels of the toxins produced by these molds.)"
>"Chipotle rejects modern synthetic fertilizers in favor of suppliers who use manure on their crops. This approach may be “all natural” and “organic” and make some customers feel warm and fuzzy, but it should not come as a surprise that applying stool, feces and excrement to growing fruits and vegetables significantly raises the risk of spreading disease. Bruce M. Chassy, food science professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana scoured U.S. Food and Drug Administration data to conclude that organic food is four to eight times more likely to be recalled over safety concerns than conventionally grown products."
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/12/14/chipotle-...
Restaurants that process their ingredients in a central kitchen can put ingredients through more aggressive sanitation treatments, and deliver them to stores pre-processed. But, that doesn't come across as particularly fresh or local.
That said, the food IS more wholesome. As long as it stays that way, I will take my chances.
The notion that GMO food should be labeled?
Opposing roundup ready strains (and the like), because it causes super bugs?
Or objections to treating life as IP, because it enables rent seeking, enabling mega corps to further put the squeeze on independent, indigenous farmers?
Farmers whose crops get contaminated by GMO strains, forcing Big Ag to sue them into oblivion, should have done a better job controlling the weather and pollinators?
Maybe you think butterflys are a nuisance and the people that like them are nuts?
Plenty of restaurants, including large chains, are not. They choose to follow (and, at the same time, promote) it, they don't "have to".
Let's hope this trendy organic thing stays isolated to Chipotle. A world where Taco Bell causes anyone needless gastrointestinal distress is not a world I want to live in!
Personally, I prefer Chipotle anyhow.