Open Letter to Professor Tom Humphrey of the Food Standards Agency

To: Professor Tom Humphrey
Food Standards Agency - Epidemiology of Foodborne Infections Group
 tom.humphrey@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

From: Marcus Williamson
Editor, Genetically Modified Food-News
 marcus.williamson@myrealbox.com


22 November 2002


Dear Professor Humphrey

An article titled "Food-poisoning warning over organic chickens"
appeared in the Independent on 20 November 2002. You provided
information for the article. However, the information presented
requires clarification in several areas:

1. The campylobacter strain found in organic chickens has *not* been
identified as a "food-poisoning bacteria", as you state in the first
paragraph. This error has been made in the past many times by
confusing harmless and harmful strains of E.coli, for example. Please
let's not see this mistake repeated with campylobacter.

2. The study does not distinguish properly between "free range" and
"organic".

3. Organic chickens are not fed antibiotics whereas conventional
chickens are routinely given antibiotics in their diet. As you are
aware, the result of this is to reduce the usefulness of antibiotics
for animals and humans.

4. The study does not make clear whether this bacteria would present
any risk after cooking of the chicken.

5. Organic and free-range chickens are more likely to host more
bacteria (not necessarily harmful bacteria) because they are allowed
outside.

6. You presented this information at the Food Standards Agency (FSA)
meeting on organic food on 6 November 2002. These errors were pointed
out to you at that meeting, by Peter Melchett of the Soil Association,
and by myself, amongst others. Yet you are still trying to insist that
this is a particular problem with "organic" chicken.

7. John Krebs stated at the beginning of the meeting of 6 November
2002 that the FSA is not anti-organic. Yet, you were allowed to make a
non-scheduled anti-organic presentation which was not based on good
science.

Could you comment on the above points and indicate why you are
allowing this kind of misleading information to be produced by the
Food Standard's Agency?

Look forward to hearing from you and to seeing a follow-up
clarification from the Food Standards Agency on this issue.

Thanks & regards
Marcus Williamson




Food-poison warning over organic chickens
By Steve Connor Science Editor
20 November 2002

Free-range and organic chickens are twice as likely as battery hens to
be contaminated with food-poisoning bacteria, a government-funded
study for the Food Standards Agency has found.

More than 99 per cent of organic flocks are infected with
campylobacter – potentially serious food-borne bacteria – compared
with 56 per cent of conventionally reared chickens. Out of 75
free-range flocks, 69 were infected.

The agency tried to play down the findings yesterday, saying they were
preliminary. And the Soil Association, which certifies organic
farmers, said there was no evidence that the campylobacter strains
found in chickens could lead to food poisoning.

But the agency said chickens were a major source of campylobacter and
the micro-organisms were an important cause of food-borne disease.
"Poultry plays a significant part in exposing humans to campylobacter
organisms and reducing the number of campylobacter positive chickens
on retail sale is likely to be an important step in reducing human
infections," it said.

Tom Humphrey, a professor of food safety at Bristol University,
released details of the poultry survey at a scientific meeting on
organic food organised by the agency. All the contaminated birds
identified by the study were destined for human consumption.

The findings closely match the results of a similar survey in Denmark
which showed that organic chickens were up to three times more likely
to contain food-poisoning bacteria, undermining claims that organic
food is safer than conventional produce. The Soil Association said the
British and Danish studies had not tried to distinguish the strains of
campylobacter that can cause food poisoning from those that were
harmless. The agency said: "Our understanding of which types of
campylobacter cause disease in humans is still developing and we will
be funding work to address this. There is a considerable body of
evidence implicating chicken as a source of campylobacter infection in
people."

Free-range and organic chickens that are allowed to roam outdoors are
possibly more likely to be exposed to outside sources of
campylobacter. Good kitchen hygiene and thorough cooking of meat can
significantly reduce the risk of human infection.

The Soil Association said: "Humans and chickens have large numbers of
bacteria in their intestines most of which are not just harmful but
beneficial. There are hundreds of strains of beneficial campylobacter
and only a very small number can lead to food poisoning." The
association said that even if organic chickens were contaminated with
campylobacter, the bugs were unlikely to be resistant to the
antibiotics used to treat serious campylobacter infection.

"This is because the routine use of the equivalent veterinary drugs is
prohibited and the extensive approach tends to reduce the incidence of
other diseases for which intensive farmers need to use antibiotics,"
it said.

The agency is developing a strategy for the reduction of campylobacter
in poultry which is has promised to publish next year. It is already
committed to cutting salmonella levels in chicken by half. The
national average level for salmonella infection in poultry is about 6
per cent.