An Urban's Rural View

Less beef, more chicken. That's been the trend for 37 years and USDA expects it to continue (http://tiny.cc/…).

As it does, pressure will build on the government to do more to combat chicken-borne illnesses, like the Heidelberg strain of salmonella linked to Foster Farms chicken that infected 430 Americans late last year. The question is how USDA will respond to the pressure (http://tiny.cc/…).

In 1976, consumption of beef per person peaked in the U.S. at 94.4 pounds. Chicken consumption per person that year was only 42.1 pounds. By 2013, the meats had traded places: 83.7 pounds of chicken vs. only 56.5 pounds of beef.

Yet despite the role reversal, the only toxic bacteria in food that USDA has banned are E. coli strains found in ground beef and pork (http://tiny.cc/…). The agency has yet to act on a petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit group, to ban Heidelberg salmonella.

Four children died in 1993 after eating hamburger tainted with E. coli 0157:H7. No deaths have been reported from last fall's Heidelberg salmonella outbreak but many of the victims have had to be hospitalized with vomiting, diarrhea, swellings and other symptoms.

A toddler suffered abscesses on his brain that may leave him with learning and vision problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says several commonly prescribed antibiotics have failed to work against the strain.

Food companies are fighting a ban. They're looking for ways to reduce salmonella contamination but argue it would be impossible to eliminate it. Consumers, they say, must take responsibility for cooking chicken to the proper temperature -- 165 degrees Fahrenheit -- and avoiding cross-contamination with other foods.

No one disputes the need for consumers to accept this responsibility. But even if they do, they might still end up with a salmonella problem. The Costco warehouse stores, which cook their rotisserie chickens to 180 degrees, found enough salmonella that a Costco store in San Francisco voluntarily recalled thousands of Foster Farms birds.

I have tried to outline the issues in this controversy with a minimum of drama. That is not the way the general media is sketching them. Quite understandably, given the wrenching effects of salmonellosis, the press tells vivid stories of changed lives.

A Washington Post (http://tiny.cc/…) account of the Foster Farms-linked outbreak leads with a 51-year-old California advertising executive who spent five days in the hospital suffering from "severe vomiting, diarrhea and an infection that left his joints throbbing and his right leg purple and twice its normal size."

Months later, the Post says, he takes drops for his right eye, which is constantly congested and itchy. Moreover, "Doctors have given him cortisone shots and steroids to help with the lingering pain in his right knee, part of a condition known as reactive arthritis often associated with severe salmonella infections."

The more outbreaks occur, the more stories of this kind we'll see. It's a scary disease even if no one dies; a death or two would superheat the controversy.

So will USDA ban salmonella in poultry? If people continue to get sick eating chicken, something will eventually have to give. Either the industry must find a way to stop the outbreaks or political pressure will force the government to act.

Industry may well sue to overturn a ban if it's imposed and there's case law supporting its position. But the courts upheld a USDA E. coli ban so there's no guarantee industry would prevail.

No doubt a ban on salmonella would require costly changes in practices at every level of poultry production and distribution, from the farm to the retail outlet. Consumers would have to pay more. But if that's the price of avoiding a hospital stay, many will be willing to.

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com

(ES)

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.