On Friday, April 10, 2008, The New York Times ran an op-ed with the incendiary title, "Free Range Trichinosis," to which our AgriCulture co-columnist Mark Scherzer, a free-range pig farmer himself, shot back the following assurance of on-going vigilance at Turkana Farms, as well as a measured counter-argument. Then on Monday, April 14, the op-ed piece had an editor's addendum apologizing for not having cited the source of funding for the study on which the original piece had been based: none other than The National Pork Board. Ahem. We've heard from a few people who read the Op-Ed in Friday's New York Times with the alarmist title, "Free Range Trichinosis." The thesis was that pigs who are allowed to roam outside confined pens (ours have about an acre of field reserved for their frolics) can pick up pathogens, and hence present risks that factory raised pork doesn't present. Serious concerns, indeed. We think the Op-Ed to be lacking somewhat in balance (seeming to minimize, for example, the risks from routinely medicating animals, and, even odder, showing far greater concern for pathogens that might be picked up in "damp soil" than for the risks involved in pigs wallowing in their own excrement, as happens in the huge pig sheds of the factory farm). Nevertheless, we must be sure our pork presents no risk other than the risk of over-eating it, and want to give the issues raised the research and due deliberation required for a meaningful response. Since we've been sampling liberally from the full range of cuts for the last five years, we feel quite confident in the safety of the pork we have sold in the past and in the butchered pork we now have on hand, all processed at USDA inspected facilities. But we will carefully assess whether any changes in our approach are advisable before the next pigs go to market. —Mark Scherzer Days later, Peter Davies sent this letter to the editor of the Times. To date, they have neither published nor acknowledged his letter, nor acted upon his suggestion. To the Editor: Unlike your recent Op Ed writer James E. McWilliams, who neglected to reveal that the research on which he based his article "Free-Range Trichinosis" (Op-Ed, April 10, 2009) was funded by the National Pork Board, I will lay my cards on the table and state that, among other things, I raise free-range pork. It seems to me that the publication of such a biased piece does a great disservice to those of us who pride ourselves on producing an antibiotic free animal, raised in healthful and humane conditions. There were ample clues of an agri-business bias in the Op Ed that, I feel, should have raised red flags. The unnecessarily alarming headline "Free Range Trichinosis" could also have been written by the National Pork Board. The best approach to a safe, healthful food supply deserves more objective investigation. Is, perhaps, another more objective Op Ed on the subject in order? —Peter Davies
