In a recent study, Consumer Reports concluded that 83% of all the chickens sold in the US are likely to contain foodborne illness-causing bacteria, such as campylobacter and salmonella. Known for its reliable research techniques and consumer-minded approach to issues, Consumer reports has come under criticism from the USDA, which "called the report 'junk science.'"
The CR study involved running tests on 525 supermarket chickens (from leading brands) before drawing their conclusions. Despite the fact that different brands were tested, the USDA says that the sample size was too small to conclude anything about all the chickens in the country - especially considering that there are something like 9 billion chickens killed for food in the US every year. A spokesperson for the U.S. Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service said that the methodology was not there, or at least was not sufficiently explained, to justify the conclusions. For example, the study found that 15% of chickens carried salmonella (a number actually in line with USDA data), but failed to identify the strain(s) present, not even mentioning that not every strain makes people sick.
The USDA will conduct its own study of the matter beginning in January.
Second Helping of Slashfood - June 19
Competitive-Eating Contest to Pit Humans Against Elephants
The Backyard Boom - The Hungry Bride
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-07-2006 @ 12:57PM
Deepak said...
As a consumer, i would hope when i buy a chicken i would get one without any bacteria. I do not see a disclaimer that says that 10% of the food bought at a supermarket will have bacteria.
Reply
12-07-2006 @ 2:18PM
Jerry Kindall said...
You have to assume any meat you buy is going to be contaminated with something; the slaughtering and processing smears a lot of fecal material and blood around -- from multiple animals, too. That's why you cook your meat. Irradiation would solve this problem, but people don't seem to care for the idea.
Being careful about where your meat comes from is also a good idea. You'll pay more, but it'll be of better quality.
Reply
12-07-2006 @ 3:56PM
Dmnkly said...
Deepak...
Every single piece of meat or vegetable you buy has bacteria, and most will have trace amounts of types that can be harmful in large enough quantities. Bacteria-free food is a complete fantasy that has never existed. The question isn't whether or not there is bacteria present. The two relevant questions, when it comes to public health, are:
1) Are there types of bacteria present that can cause problems if consumed in high quantities, and...
2) Is there enough of said bacteria present to cause a problem.
If your goal is bacteria-free food, you're going to starve before you come up with anything.
Reply
12-07-2006 @ 4:19PM
Jason said...
Consumer Reports is also not a very trustworthy source. For example, the Toyota Corolla and Geo Prism used to be the same car built on the same assembly line by the same workers.
Consumer Reports ranked those two cars dramatically differently. I find it really hard not to say "I want to see all of your data" whenever I hear something from Consumer Reports.
Reply
12-07-2006 @ 8:25PM
Steve said...
CR and equivalent organisations/publications in other countries are like a newspaper article: they only seem to be decent if you don't know a lot about the subject at hand. Read a newspaper article about something you happen to know a lot about and you'll find numerous errors.
As a rule, journalists aren't experts at most of the things they write about and neither are CR reviewers. I think that would be impossible and/or very expensive.
Reply