611126 Fri Apr 10 16:19:34 -0700 2009 5 33 Food Media and News 0 4585688 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/opinion/10mcwilliams.html Interesting commentary on the idea of free range pork being "healthier". Fri Apr 10 16:19:34 -0700 2009 11826 Phaedrus 1 4585879 The pigs being referenced in Texas are Feral hogs. I've hunted there several times. Wild Boars can be found in several states but they are a different beast and can have a very strong game taste. Even large male feral hogs can be unusable. The terms get a little mixed as some call all wild pigs boars however feral hogs do not have tusks. To confuse you a little more Texas also has Javalina's and they are indigenous to Texas. Think of them as Mini-pigs with a tude! Fri Apr 10 17:45:57 -0700 2009 4585688 253154 Fritter 1 4587700 It would appear that the writer has not done much research on the subject. True free range pigs are offered open pasture that enables them more than a "modicum" of exercise. The pigs are also rotated through different paddocks to minimize any risk of parasite build up on the land, just as farmers do with cattle and sheep. As with any livestock operation, sound management skills are needed, even in an intensive pig shed, to prevent disease. Free range pigs may be more exposed to the risk of trichinosis but shutting them in sheds is not the answer, housed pigs can get it also. The disease burden for a free range pigs is minimal when compared to a housed animal. Intensive pigs are fed a concoction of drugs from birth just to keep them alive in an environment that could be liken to a disease incubator. If you are not concerned with the antibiotics they have been fed and the potential harm they can do you, what about the growth promoters and hormones they are given to produce muscle that they are unable to do natural because they dont get even a "modicum" of exercise. The comment about increased contact with rats etc was interesting. I cant say that I have seen too many rats in an open pasture, although, I have seen them running over pigs in a confinement shed. Sat Apr 11 14:10:47 -0700 2009 4585688 281958 toscca 1 4595113 The article also completely ignores the enviromental impact of the large industrial farms. Here's a pretty enlightening article from Rolling Stone a few years ago on the Smithfield industrial pig farms. (Note: not for the squeamish) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters Tue Apr 14 12:08:21 -0700 2009 4585688 19555 SoMaHound 1 4595620 The study the author cites was funded by the National Pork Board, a fact not included in the editorial as it was originally published. The author outright misleads the reader with the title of the piece and then outright lies when he says that "two free-range pigs that carried the parasite trichina (as opposed to zero for confined pigs)" The study actually only found the antibodies that fight the parasite, not the parasite itself. That *could* mean that the pigs have the parasite, or it could mean that they were exposed to the parasite and their (healthier, free-range) immune systems fought it off. Obviously the confined pigs are not going to have the antibody, they are kept medicated at all times and isolated from the outside world. And of course as SoMaHound says, the author totally ignores the health effects of giant lagoons filled with pig excrement, antibiotics and hormones in our pork, and all the other nasty side effects of factory pig farming. http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/is-free-range-pork-more-contaminated-than-industrial-pork/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/are-contrarians-helping-o_b_185762.html http://wiseeats.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/free-range-vs-factory-farm-pigs/ Oh, and I love this ridiculous line: "Free range is ultimately an arbitrary point between the wild and the domesticated". No it is not! Tue Apr 14 14:30:23 -0700 2009 4585688 29811 Buckethead 2 4595686 I was quite skeptical of some of those claims too. Then I read the "correction" posted on the Op-Ed page in today's NY Times. It states exactly what you've pointed out -- that the "study" was funded by the National Pork Board. One would think that this would be a critical piece of information to have when actually reading the article in the first place! Tue Apr 14 14:49:33 -0700 2009 4595620 104084 LNG212