The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional

The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional.jpeg

The stated principles of organic agriculture are "health, ecology, fairness, and care," but if you ask people why they buy organic, the strongest predictor is concern for their own health. People appear to spend more for organic foods for selfish reasons, rather than altruistic motives. Although organic foods may not have more nutrients per dollar (see my video Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?), consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Food safety-wise, researchers found no difference in the risk for contamination with food poisoning bacteria in general. Both organic and conventional animal products have been found to be commonly contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter, for example. Most chicken samples (organic and inorganic), were found to be contaminated with Campylobacter, and about a third with Salmonella, but the risk of exposure to multidrug-resistant bacteria was lower with the organic meat. They both may carry the same risk of making us sick, but food poisoning from organic meat may be easier for doctors to treat.

What about the pesticides? There is a large body of evidence on the relation between exposure to pesticides and elevated rate of chronic diseases such as different types of cancers, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and ALS, as well as birth defects and reproductive disorders--but these studies were largely on people who live or work around pesticides.

Take Salinas Valley California, for example, where they spray a half million pounds of the stuff. Daring to be pregnant in an agricultural community like that may impair childhood brain development, such that pregnant women with the highest levels running through their bodies (as measured in their urine) gave birth to children with an average deficit of about seven IQ points. Twenty-six out of 27 studies showed negative effects of pesticides on brain development in children. These included attention problems, developmental disorders, and short-term memory difficulties.

Even in urban areas, if you compare kids born with higher levels of a common insecticide in their umbilical cord blood, those who were exposed to higher levels are born with brain anomalies. And these were city kids, so presumably this was from residential pesticide use.

Using insecticides inside your house may also be a contributing risk factor for childhood leukemia. Pregnant farmworkers may be doubling the odds of their child getting leukemia and increase their risk of getting a brain tumor. This has lead to authorities advocating that awareness of the potentially negative health outcome for children be increased among populations occupationally exposed to pesticides, though I don't imagine most farmworkers have much of a choice.

Conventional produce may be bad for the pregnant women who pick them, but what about our own family when we eat them?

Just because we spray pesticides on our food in the fields doesn't necessarily mean it ends up in our bodies when we eat it, or at least we didn't know that until a study was published in 2006. Researchers measured the levels of two pesticides running through children's bodies by measuring specific pesticide breakdown products in their urine. In my video, Are Organic Foods Safer?, you can see the levels of pesticides flowing through the bodies of three to 11-year olds during a few days on a conventional diet. The kids then went on an organic diet for five days and then back to the conventional diet. As you can see, eating organic provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to pesticides commonly used in agricultural production. The study was subsequently extended. It's clear by looking at the subsequent graph in the video when the kids were eating organic versus conventional. What about adults, though? We didn't know... until now.

Thirteen men and women consumed a diet of at least 80% organic or conventional food for seven days and then switched. No surprise, during the mostly organic week, pesticide exposure was significantly reduced by a nearly 90% drop.

If it can be concluded that consumption of organic foods provides protection against pesticides, does that also mean protection against disease? We don't know. The studies just haven't been done. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the consumption of organic food provides a logical precautionary approach.

For more on organic foods:

For more on the infectious disease implications of organic versus conventional, see Superbugs in Conventional vs. Organic Chicken. Organic produce may be safer too. See Norovirus Food Poisoning from Pesticides. Organic eggs may also have lower Salmonella risk, which is an egg-borne epidemic every year in the US. See my video Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?

More on Parkinson's and pesticides in Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet.

Those surprised by the California data might have missed my video California Children Are Contaminated.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: IFPRI -IMAGES / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional

The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional.jpeg

The stated principles of organic agriculture are "health, ecology, fairness, and care," but if you ask people why they buy organic, the strongest predictor is concern for their own health. People appear to spend more for organic foods for selfish reasons, rather than altruistic motives. Although organic foods may not have more nutrients per dollar (see my video Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?), consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Food safety-wise, researchers found no difference in the risk for contamination with food poisoning bacteria in general. Both organic and conventional animal products have been found to be commonly contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter, for example. Most chicken samples (organic and inorganic), were found to be contaminated with Campylobacter, and about a third with Salmonella, but the risk of exposure to multidrug-resistant bacteria was lower with the organic meat. They both may carry the same risk of making us sick, but food poisoning from organic meat may be easier for doctors to treat.

What about the pesticides? There is a large body of evidence on the relation between exposure to pesticides and elevated rate of chronic diseases such as different types of cancers, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and ALS, as well as birth defects and reproductive disorders--but these studies were largely on people who live or work around pesticides.

Take Salinas Valley California, for example, where they spray a half million pounds of the stuff. Daring to be pregnant in an agricultural community like that may impair childhood brain development, such that pregnant women with the highest levels running through their bodies (as measured in their urine) gave birth to children with an average deficit of about seven IQ points. Twenty-six out of 27 studies showed negative effects of pesticides on brain development in children. These included attention problems, developmental disorders, and short-term memory difficulties.

Even in urban areas, if you compare kids born with higher levels of a common insecticide in their umbilical cord blood, those who were exposed to higher levels are born with brain anomalies. And these were city kids, so presumably this was from residential pesticide use.

Using insecticides inside your house may also be a contributing risk factor for childhood leukemia. Pregnant farmworkers may be doubling the odds of their child getting leukemia and increase their risk of getting a brain tumor. This has lead to authorities advocating that awareness of the potentially negative health outcome for children be increased among populations occupationally exposed to pesticides, though I don't imagine most farmworkers have much of a choice.

Conventional produce may be bad for the pregnant women who pick them, but what about our own family when we eat them?

Just because we spray pesticides on our food in the fields doesn't necessarily mean it ends up in our bodies when we eat it, or at least we didn't know that until a study was published in 2006. Researchers measured the levels of two pesticides running through children's bodies by measuring specific pesticide breakdown products in their urine. In my video, Are Organic Foods Safer?, you can see the levels of pesticides flowing through the bodies of three to 11-year olds during a few days on a conventional diet. The kids then went on an organic diet for five days and then back to the conventional diet. As you can see, eating organic provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to pesticides commonly used in agricultural production. The study was subsequently extended. It's clear by looking at the subsequent graph in the video when the kids were eating organic versus conventional. What about adults, though? We didn't know... until now.

Thirteen men and women consumed a diet of at least 80% organic or conventional food for seven days and then switched. No surprise, during the mostly organic week, pesticide exposure was significantly reduced by a nearly 90% drop.

If it can be concluded that consumption of organic foods provides protection against pesticides, does that also mean protection against disease? We don't know. The studies just haven't been done. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the consumption of organic food provides a logical precautionary approach.

For more on organic foods:

For more on the infectious disease implications of organic versus conventional, see Superbugs in Conventional vs. Organic Chicken. Organic produce may be safer too. See Norovirus Food Poisoning from Pesticides. Organic eggs may also have lower Salmonella risk, which is an egg-borne epidemic every year in the US. See my video Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?

More on Parkinson's and pesticides in Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet.

Those surprised by the California data might have missed my video California Children Are Contaminated.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: IFPRI -IMAGES / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply.jpeg

Clostridium difficile is one of our most urgent bacterial threats, sickening a quarter million Americans every year, and killing thousands at the cost of a billion dollars a year. And it's on the rise.

As shown in C. difficile Superbugs in Meat, uncomplicated cases have been traditionally managed with powerful antibiotics, but recent reports suggest that hypervirulent strains are increasingly resistant to medical management. There's been a rise in the percentage of cases that end up under the knife, which could be a marker of the emergence of these hypervirulent strains. Surgeons may need to remove our colon entirely to save our lives, although the surgery is so risky that the operation alone may kill us half the time.

Historically, most cases appeared in hospitals, but a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only about a third of cases could be linked to contact with an infected patient.

Another potential source is our food supply.

In the US, the frequency of contamination of retail chicken with these superbugs has been documented to be up to one in six packages off of store shelves. Pig-derived C. diff, however, have garnered the greatest attention from public health personnel, because the same human strain that's increasingly emerging in the community outside of hospitals is the major strain among pigs.

Since the turn of the century, C. diff is increasingly being reported as a major cause of intestinal infections in piglets. C. diff is now one of the most common causes of intestinal infections in baby piglets in the US. Particular attention has been paid to pigs because of high rates of C. diff shedding into their waste, which can lead to the contamination of retail pork. The U.S. has the highest levels of C. diff meat contamination tested so far anywhere in the world.

Carcass contamination by gut contents at slaughter probably contributes most to the presence of C. diff in meat and meat products. But why is the situation so much worst in the US? Slaughter techniques differ from country-to-country, with those in the United States evidently being more of the "quick and dirty" variety.

Colonization or contamination of pigs by superbugs such as C. difficile and MRSA at the farm production level may be more important than at the slaughterhouse level, though. One of the reasons sows and their piglets may have such high rates of C. diff is because of cross-contamination of feces in the farrowing crate, which are narrow metal cages that mother pigs are kept in while their piglets are nursing.

Can't you just follow food safety guidelines and cook the meat through? Unfortunately, current food safety guidelines are ineffective against C. difficile. To date, most food safety guidelines recommend cooking to an internal temperature as low as 63o C-the official USDA recommendation for pork-but recent studies show that C. diff spores can survive extended heating at 71o. Therefore, the guidelines should be raised to take this potentially killer infection into account.

One of the problems is that sources of C. diff food contamination might include not only fecal contamination on the surface of the meat, but transfer of spores from the gut into the actual muscles of the animal, inside the meat. Clostridia bacteria like C. diff comprise one of the main groups of bacteria involved in natural carcass degradation, and so by colonizing muscle tissue before death, C. diff can not only transmit to new hosts that eat the muscles, like us, but give them a head start on carcass break-down.

Never heard of C. diff? That's the Toxic Megacolon Superbug I've talked about before.

Another foodborne illness tied to pork industry practices is yersiniosis. See Yersinia in Pork.

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus) is another so-called superbug in the meat supply:

More on the scourge of antibiotic resistance and what can be done about it:

How is it even legal to sell foods with such pathogens? See Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly But Not Illegal and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: USDA / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply.jpeg

Clostridium difficile is one of our most urgent bacterial threats, sickening a quarter million Americans every year, and killing thousands at the cost of a billion dollars a year. And it's on the rise.

As shown in C. difficile Superbugs in Meat, uncomplicated cases have been traditionally managed with powerful antibiotics, but recent reports suggest that hypervirulent strains are increasingly resistant to medical management. There's been a rise in the percentage of cases that end up under the knife, which could be a marker of the emergence of these hypervirulent strains. Surgeons may need to remove our colon entirely to save our lives, although the surgery is so risky that the operation alone may kill us half the time.

Historically, most cases appeared in hospitals, but a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only about a third of cases could be linked to contact with an infected patient.

Another potential source is our food supply.

In the US, the frequency of contamination of retail chicken with these superbugs has been documented to be up to one in six packages off of store shelves. Pig-derived C. diff, however, have garnered the greatest attention from public health personnel, because the same human strain that's increasingly emerging in the community outside of hospitals is the major strain among pigs.

Since the turn of the century, C. diff is increasingly being reported as a major cause of intestinal infections in piglets. C. diff is now one of the most common causes of intestinal infections in baby piglets in the US. Particular attention has been paid to pigs because of high rates of C. diff shedding into their waste, which can lead to the contamination of retail pork. The U.S. has the highest levels of C. diff meat contamination tested so far anywhere in the world.

Carcass contamination by gut contents at slaughter probably contributes most to the presence of C. diff in meat and meat products. But why is the situation so much worst in the US? Slaughter techniques differ from country-to-country, with those in the United States evidently being more of the "quick and dirty" variety.

Colonization or contamination of pigs by superbugs such as C. difficile and MRSA at the farm production level may be more important than at the slaughterhouse level, though. One of the reasons sows and their piglets may have such high rates of C. diff is because of cross-contamination of feces in the farrowing crate, which are narrow metal cages that mother pigs are kept in while their piglets are nursing.

Can't you just follow food safety guidelines and cook the meat through? Unfortunately, current food safety guidelines are ineffective against C. difficile. To date, most food safety guidelines recommend cooking to an internal temperature as low as 63o C-the official USDA recommendation for pork-but recent studies show that C. diff spores can survive extended heating at 71o. Therefore, the guidelines should be raised to take this potentially killer infection into account.

One of the problems is that sources of C. diff food contamination might include not only fecal contamination on the surface of the meat, but transfer of spores from the gut into the actual muscles of the animal, inside the meat. Clostridia bacteria like C. diff comprise one of the main groups of bacteria involved in natural carcass degradation, and so by colonizing muscle tissue before death, C. diff can not only transmit to new hosts that eat the muscles, like us, but give them a head start on carcass break-down.

Never heard of C. diff? That's the Toxic Megacolon Superbug I've talked about before.

Another foodborne illness tied to pork industry practices is yersiniosis. See Yersinia in Pork.

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus) is another so-called superbug in the meat supply:

More on the scourge of antibiotic resistance and what can be done about it:

How is it even legal to sell foods with such pathogens? See Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly But Not Illegal and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: USDA / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Superbugs on Retail Chicken

NF-Jan13 Superbugs in Conventional Vs. Organic Chicken.jpg

One of the most concerning developments in medicine is the emergence of bacterial super-resistance--resistance not just to one class of drugs, like penicillin, but to multiple classes of drugs (so-called multi-drug resistance). In the 2013 Retail Meat Report, the FDA found that more than a quarter of the Salmonella contaminating retail chicken breast were resistant to not one but five or more different classes of antibiotic treatment drugs.

Throughout history there has been a continual battle between humans and pathogens. For the last half century, this battle has taken the form of bugs versus drugs. When we developed penicillin, the U.S. Surgeon General declared, "The war against infectious diseases has been won." However, the euphoria over the potential conquest of infectious diseases was short lived.

In response to our offensive, bacteria developed an enzyme that ate penicillin for breakfast. In fact, bacteria can excrete such large quantities of the enzyme that they can destroy the drug before it even comes into contact. So we developed a drug that blocks the penicillin-eating enzyme. That's why you may see two drug names on an antibiotic like Augmentin--one is the actual antibiotic (amoxicillin), and the other is a drug that blocks the enzyme the bacteria tries to use to block the antibiotic (clavulanate). But the bacteria outsmarted us again by developing a blocker blocking blocker--and so it goes back and forth. However hard we try and however clever we are, there is no question that organisms that have "been around for three billion years, and have adapted to survive under the most extreme conditions, will always overcome whatever we decide to throw at them."

So we went from first generation antibiotics, to second generation antibiotics, to third generation antibiotics. We now have bacteria that have evolved the capacity to survive our big-gun third generation cephalosporins like ceftriaxone, which is what we rely on to treat life-threatening Salmonella infections in children.

Where are these super-duper-superbugs found? According to one study profiled in my video, Superbugs in Conventional vs. Organic Chicken, "almost 90% were isolated from chicken carcasses or retail chicken meat."

But what if we only ate antibiotic-free organic chicken? In the first such study ever published, researchers compared multidrug-resistant bacteria in organic and conventional retail chicken meat. All of the conventional chicken samples were contaminated; however, the majority (84%) of organic chicken meat samples was also contaminated. So 100% versus 84%. Organic is definitely better, but odds are we could still be buying something that could make our family sick.

Where do these antibiotic resistant bacteria come from if organic producers are not using antibiotics? A possible explanation is that day-old chicks come from the hatcheries already infected with these bacteria before they arrive at the farms. Or, they could become contaminated after they leave the farm in the slaughter plant. Organic chickens and conventionally raised chickens are typically all slaughtered at the same plants, so there may be cross-contamination between carcasses. Finally, factory farms are dumping antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria-laden chicken manure out into the environment. Researchers can pick up antibiotic-resistant genes right out of the soil around factory farms. So even meat raised without antibiotics may be contaminated with multi-drug resistant bacteria.

In a cover story in which Consumer Reports urged retailers to stop selling meat produced with antibiotics, the researchers noted some store employee confusion: "An assistant store manager at one grocery store, when asked by a shopper for meats raised without antibiotics, responded, 'Wait, you mean like veggie burgers?'" On second thought maybe the employees weren't so confused after all.

I addressed this issue previously in video such as:

Isn't it illegal to sell meat contaminated with dangerous bacteria? Unfortunately no. See why in my video Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly But Not Illegal. Reminds me of the case I wrote about in Supreme Court case: meat industry sues to keep downed animals in food supply.

-Michael Greger, M.D

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Chilanga Cement / Flickr

Original Link

30 Reasons to Go Vegan

Happy World Vegan Month! Here are 30 reasons to try Veganism, one for each day in November: 1. Raising and slaughtering animals at the current rate of consume demand requires horrific, inhumane, torturous practices that cause immense suffering of billions of animals a year. 2. We will need 1.5 to 2 earths in order to …

Original Link

When a Scraped Knee May Once Again Kill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NF-Mar13 You Can Thank Factory Farms When Antibiotics Stop Working.jpg

In a keynote address last year, the Director-General of the World Health Organization warned that we may be facing a future in which many of our miracle drugs no longer work. “A post-antibiotic era means, in effect, an end to modern medicine as we know it,” she said. “Things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill.”

The Director-General’s prescription to avoid this catastrophe included a global call to “Restrict the use of antibiotics in food production to therapeutic purposes.” In other words, only use antibiotics in agriculture to treat sick animals. In the United States, meat producers feed literally millions of pounds of antibiotics to farm animals who aren’t sick just to promote growth or prevent disease in the often cramped, stressful, unhygienic conditions of industrial animal agriculture. The FDA estimates that 80% of the antimicrobial drugs sold in the U.S. every year now go to the meat industry.

The discoverer of penicillin warned us back in the ’40s that misuse could lead to resistance, but the meat industry didn’t listen and started feeding it to chickens by the ton. The Food and Drug Administration finally wised up to the threat in 1977 and proposed stopping the feeding of penicillin and tetracycline to farm animals.

That was 37 years ago. Since then, the combined political power of the factory farming and pharmaceutical industries has effectively thwarted any legislative or regulatory action. This stranglehold shows no sign of breaking. We realized this reckless practice was a public health threat decades ago, and yet what’s been done about it?

“Present [farm animal] production is concentrated in high-volume, crowded, stressful environments, made possible in part by the routine use of antibacterial [drugs] in [the] feed,” the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment wrote in 1979. “Thus the current dependency on low-level use of antibiotics to increase or maintain production, while of immediate benefit, also could be the Achilles’ heel of present production methods.”

Industrial operations use antibiotics as a crutch to compensate for the squalid conditions that now characterize much of modern agribusiness. The unnatural crowding of animals and their waste creates such a strain on the animals’ immune systems that normal body processes like growth may be impaired. That’s why a constant influx of antibiotics is thought to accelerate weight gain by reducing this infectious load. The problem is that “Each animal feeding on an antibiotic becomes a ‘factory’ for the production and subsequent dispersion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” offering a whole new meaning to the term “factory farm” (see my 3-min video Past the Age of Miracles: Facing a Post-Antibiotic Age for details).

What else do they feed farm animals? Check out:

This issue, perhaps more than any other, lays to bare the power of moneyed interests to undermine public health. Look at the long list of endorsers of legislation to reform this practice. Sadly, though, the sway of nearly every single medical organization in the United States is no match for the combined might of Big Ag and Big Pharma.

For more on this issue, see:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image credit: Brett Aruther Donar/ Flickr

Original Link

How Avoiding Chicken Could Prevent Bladder Infections

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Avoiding Chicken Could Prevent Bladder Infections

Where do bladder infections come from? Back in the ’70s, longitudinal studies of women over time showed that the movement of rectal bacteria into the vaginal area preceded the appearance of the same types of bacteria in the urethra before they were able to infect the bladder. However, it would be another 25 years before genetic fingerprinting techniques were able to confirm this so-called fecal-perineal-urethral theory, indicating that E. coli strains residing in the rectal flora serve as a reservoir for urinary tract infections.

And it would be another 15 years still before we tracked it back another step and figured out where that rectal reservoir of bladder infecting E. coli was coming from—chicken. Researchers were able to capture these extraintestinal (meaning outside of the gut), pathogenic, disease-causing E. coli straight from the slaughterhouse, to the meat, to the urine specimens obtained from infected women. We now have “proof of a direct link between farm animals, meat, and bladder infections,” solid evidence that urinary tract infections can be a zoonosis (an animal-to-human disease). Millions of women are infected with bladder infections every year, at a cost of more than a billion dollars.

Even worse, researchers have detected multidrug resistant strains of E. coli in chicken meat resistant to some of our most powerful antibiotics.

The best way to prevent bladder infections is the same way we can prevent all types of infections, by not getting infected in the first place. It’s not in all meat equally—beef and pork, for example, appear significantly less likely to harbor bladder-infecting strains than chicken.

Can’t one just use a meat thermometer and cook the chicken thoroughly? We’ve known for 36 years that it’s not always the meat, but the cross-contamination, that causes the infection. If you give people frozen chickens naturally contaminated with antibiotic resistant E. coli and let people prepare and cook it in their own kitchen as they normally would, the bacteria ends up in their rectum even if they don’t actually consume the meat. That’s how they know it was cross-contamination, because the jump happened after the animal was prepared but before it was eaten. In one study five different strains of antibiotic resistant E. coli jumped from the chicken to the volunteer.

So not only did it not matter how well the chicken was cooked, it didn’t even matter if one eats any! It was the bringing of the contaminated carcass into the home and handling it. Within days, the drug resistant chicken bacteria had multiplied to the point of becoming a major part of the person’s fecal flora. If you check out my 6-min video Avoiding Chicken To Avoid Bladder Infections, you can see all this drug resistant bacteria colonizing this person’s colon, yet the person hadn’t taken any antibiotics—it’s the chickens who were given the drugs. That’s why the industry shouldn’t be routinely feeding chickens antibiotics by the millions of pounds a year. It can end up selecting for and amplifying superbugs that may end up in our bodies.

More on the threat of feeding antibiotics to farm animals by the ton in:

What if we’re really careful in the kitchen, though? The pivotal study in this area was entitled “The Effectiveness of Hygiene Procedures for Prevention of Cross-Contamination from Chicken Carcasses in the Domestic Kitchen.” Researchers went into five dozen homes, gave each family a chicken, and asked them to cook it. I expected to read that they inoculated the carcass with a specific number of bacteria to ensure everyone got a contaminated bird, but no. They realized that fecal contamination of chicken carcasses was so common that they just went to the store and bought any random chicken.

After the participants were done cooking it, there was bacteria from chicken feces (Salmonella and Campylobacter–both serious human pathogens) all over the kitchen—on the cutting board, the utensils, on their hands, on the fridge handle, on the cupboard,  the oven handle doorknob. Obviously people don’t know what proper handling and disinfection protocols entail. So the researchers took another group of people and gave them specific instructions. After they cooked the chicken they had to wash everything with hot water and detergent. They were told specifically to wash the cutting board, knobs on the sink, the faucet, the fridge, the doorknobs—everything. And the researchers still found pathogenic fecal bacteria all over.

Fine. Last group. This time they were going to insist that people bleach everything. The dishcloth used to wipe up was to be immersed in bleach disinfectant. Then they sprayed the bleach on all kitchen surfaces and let it sit there for 5 minutes. And… they still found Campylobacter and Salmonella on some utensils, a dishcloth, the counter around the sink, and the cupboard. Definitely better, but unless our kitchen is like some biohazard lab, the only way to guarantee we’re not going to leave infection around the kitchen is to not bring it into the house in the first place.

The good news is that if we eat chicken once, we’re not colonized for life. In the study I profile in Avoiding Chicken To Avoid Bladder Infections, the chicken bacteria only seemed to last about 10 days in peoples' guts before our good bacteria could muscle it out of the way. The problem is that people tend to eat chicken more than once every ten days, so they may be constantly re-introducing these chicken pathogens into their system. For example, a study found that if people are fed only sterilized meat that’s been boiled for an hour, within 3 weeks there’s a 500 fold drop in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria passing through their bodies.

I originally explored this topic in Chicken Out of UTIs, but decided I needed to take a much deeper dive, especially in light of the cross-contamination issue, which I also  touched on in Food Poisoning Bacteria Cross-Contamination and Fecal Contamination of Sushi.

Other videos about diseases that one might not initially associate with food include:

More on urinary tract health in:

What if you already have a urinary tract infection? See Can Cranberry Juice Treat Bladder Infections?

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image credit: epSos.de / Flickr

Original Link