Listeria Outbreak!

Jared Staege

Sophie Williams

Brittany Johnson

Emily Rouse

Alexandria Jesme

Topic: Listeria Outbreak
Our group decided to this topic because it was something that was current in the news and we could follow the updates and the differences of information between media outlets in real time. We wanted to use a couple of typical news outlets as a basis for comparison and see how that information was portrayed differently in the blog posts and the government sites.

Listeriosis is a food poisoning that can be caused by eating foods contaminated with the L. monocytogenes bacterium. This illness mostly affects pregnant women, newborns, elderly, and adults with impaired immune systems. This bacteria can grow in soil and water and can thrive in cold temperatures. We wanted to search this topic because we wanted to make connections between sources and see if we could find clues back to one main source. This will help us to realize that this ‘grand narrative’ of our history is really coming from only a couple of outlets. So what is the point of having so many stories written with the same information from all different outlets? They have to written about the ‘facts’ anyway right?

According to dictionary.com a fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. It is verifiable and usually corresponds to experience. This is important in our study because these news articles are eager to include ‘fact’ based information that makes their article more credible. Is there such thing as a ‘fact’ if the next day more information is found and the ‘facts’ change? Is it more important to get the facts straight or be the first one to write the news article?

Article 1:October 19, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/business/listeria-outbreak-traced-to-colorado-cantaloupe-packing-shed.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Jared:
The article, Listeria Outbreak Traced to Cantaloupe Packing Shed, from the New York Times is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Listeria outbreak from Jensen Farms in Colorado. Author William Neuman begins by giving some background of the situation. The outbreak began in late July, and is the deadliest foodborne illness since 1985. 123 people have gotten sick in 26 states, and 25 have died. The introduction of listeria to the farm remains unknown, but it is speculated that a dump truck used to carry the melons to a cattle farm was parked near the processing shed could have brought the bacteria back.
Neuman goes on to describe the farm as having multiple potential “breeding grounds” for listeria such as pools of water, unsanitary equipment, and improper procedure in the storing process. But what worries Neuman is the shoddy performance from the third-party auditors who inspected Jensen Farms and gave it a 96 out of 100. These auditors are meant to ensure the safety of the food industry, but their procedures are generally unregulated. This leads me, as I’m sure other consumers, to wonder, can we trust the U.S. food supply? Can we trust these third-party auditors? I don’t know. But Trevor V. Suslow puts it into perspective, stating that, “Auditors may give farmers, processors and retailers a false sense of security.” As a 19 year old college kid, if a “professional” says something is ok to eat of course I’m going to eat it with 100% confidence.
Something I really wonder from reading this article is how did James M. DiLorio give Jensen Farms a 96 out of 100 on his inspection of the production facility? What factors did take into account? Did he inspect the whole facility and all the equipment? Considering the result of the cantaloupe, I would find all of these questions hard to believe. If a testimonial from him were possible to attain, I would love to hear what he has to say to defend himself.

I think Neuman used his perspective of being skeptical of auditors to create a feeling of insecurity in consumers. As consumers, our docile bodies say “yes” to products with an “FDA Approved” sticker on them, but it is apparent through this outbreak and others that this is not always safe. From a college kids perspective it scares me but it’s not going to change how I eat: I will still eat whatever is cheapest because I’m broke. But as a parent or elderly person, this would scare the bejezzus out of me. Even if you don’t do something wrong, and auditor can screw up his auditing and if you buy the “safe” product, you or your kids could potentially get sick and die. Something in the auditing process needs to change. Qualifications must be set to officially become an auditor. Even when you become an auditor, another auditor should audit the place as well to be extra safe for the sake of Americans.

Response: Sophie’s comments for Jared’s article:

I like the viewpoint you take on the article. It’s almost as if you’re playing devil’s advocate when you consider the inspection notes of James M. DiLorio. Most people trust that a 96/100 is a good inspection grade, but the fact that you asked yourself those questions shows that you are able to read further into a potential problem. It’s interesting that the article pointed this fact out as well, almost placing more blame on the inspection team. Compared to other articles, it is obvious that there may be multiple reasons for the listeria outbreak, but they still followed the same guidelines. How many people were sick and how many died were always the first concern mentioned. My article differed from Jared’s because his focused on the FDA’s aspect of the outbreak whereas mine placed the blame on outside factors (such as animals). I also feel that because the articles were written within 10 days of each other, not much information could have came in to play to let viewers know of what was going on with the outbreak because of the short amount of time.
Article 2:September 29, 2011

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/listeria-outbreak-how-do-i-know-if-i-have-it-what-are-the-symptoms-.html
Lexi:
Listeria is causing some major panic, but in this article, Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? What are the symptoms? From the Los Angeles Times seems to be more of a calming than hysterical article. It seems like the author, Rene Lynch is trying to inform people to stay calm, perfect!take simple precaution and at all costs avoid cantaloupe. The article touches on a little bit about how it’s spreading, the cause of the outbreak, what causes this bacteria, and then aims all of the tainted cantaloupe back to the Jensen Farms in Colorado. From this cantaloupe farm they are doing an international recall and until they find out more. They are also expecting the amount of tests positive to strains of Listeria monocytogenes to increase as more results come in. The Listeria bacteria is formed by little bugs that make you become ill within a few weeks to a few months period of time. They are causing one of the nations deadliest food-borne disease in more than a decade, and if you think because your cantaloupe is in the fridge, don’t kid yourself, the bugs multiply and enjoy the cold rather than killing them off. In reading this article, I would have enjoyed more so the facts of where this is taking place the most in the country, what states it has hit the most directly and where these cantaloupes are mainly distributed. I feel like it is over emphasized to keep calm and “when in doubt, throw it out.” Although, it is good to know that, I feel like I’m missing key details and facts. Were there any signs of this on the cantaloupe? Did Jensen Farms have any idea their cantaloupes were or could possibly be tainted? If symptoms appear are there any methods of improving your status or getting better? This article has the facts that the hysterical people need, but the people staying calm and being warned have nothing to work with if the symptoms diagnosed on them. What is interesting is that they have a Fruity Pebbles advertisement on the page as well as a company trying to tell their services of consulting, technology and outsourcing. I think it is funny that none of the surrounding advertisements relate to selling fresh food, organic food, or produce of any sort. Due to the shortage of the facts and information regarding this article, it strikes curiosity of to if is this all the information known and what information known is being withheld from the public? Chomsky and Herman had an intelligent plan to be curious of what information is put out for the world to read. What if this is all a scam let by the few corporations to that hold majority of the world’s or country’s power and wealth? Although the Listeria outbreak is a growing problem and causing many to be ill, we have to wonder if this is really the truth?
Response: Brittany’s comment on Lexi’s write-up:
After reading and comparing Listeria outbreak tied to water, dirty equipment to the article Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? What are the symptoms?, similarities in the style of reporting are evident.
The former article emphasized how the Listeria was able to develop, looking directly at the “facts”. Overlain with an educational focus for the audience, an idealist form of history was the result.
The latter article ultimately arrives at the same method, albeit in a slightly different manner.
Listeria outbreak tied to water, dirty equipment tells when, where, and how the outbreak started. Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? What are the symptoms? mentions the location of origination, but skips ahead to flag warning signs and offer methods of prevention: what symptoms to be wary of, when symptoms will arise, what to do if such symptoms arise, and how to avoid future contamination.
“Facts” are a key tool both reporters use, but their “facts” are just selected from different locations in the timeline of the Listeria outbreak. Essentially, the former article offers “facts” that lead up to Listeria forming, and the latter offers “facts” that lead up to finding and avoiding the infection of Listeria. Both achieve the idealist reporting.

Article 3: October 19, 2011

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20122627-10391704.html
Brittany:
In the article Listeria outbreak tied to water, dirty equipment published by CBS News over a recent Listeria outbreak that surfaced, author David Freeman attempted to relay findings through an educational, fact-focused lens. Slight blame is on Jensen farms (where Listeria-carrying cantaloupes originated from), but more detail is on explanations as to how the Listeria potentially was able to develop.
The most urgent information audiences need to know for recalls is the item, source of contamination, and scope of the outbreak. CBS, being a major news source, discloses that cantaloupes from Jensen Farms in Colorado have been found to carry Listeria that has become the deadliest outbreak in more than two decades.
The “facts” begin as soon as Freeman starts the article. Fact one: 25 people have died. Fact two: unclean facilities. Fact three: those facilities belong to Jensen Farms. The list of “facts” grows with each following sentence. Why might Freeman record only the “facts”? Most likely to give the audience an easy-to-follow narrative, with a distinct starting and ending point.
These “facts” appear to line up rather nicely for the history of this Listeria outbreak.
The main explanation is as follows: Jensen Farms, a provider of cantaloupe based in Colorado, purchased used machinery this past July. Also during the month of July was the first evidence of an outbreak. The machinery was thus investigated and found to be “old, corroded, and hard to clean”. Combining these drawbacks led to water being left on the floor post-cleanings; pooled water next to packing equipment might have been the proper climate for the Listeria to grow.
However, Freeman writes the following excerpt: “Listeria ‘could have been introduced as a result of past use of the equipment,’ according to the report. / The agency said the contamination likely happened in the packing house, but the way the cantaloupes were cooled after being picked may have contributed to Listeria growth. The farm did not use a process called "pre-cooling" that is designed to remove condensation that can promote the growth of Listeria bacteria on the cantaloupe rinds.”

A second likely source of Listeria is also mentioned, but only briefly. Freeman merely notes that a truck possibly was the source of contamination and Listeria was carried into the packing house by more equipment or by people.
By offering various “facts” that point to different conclusions, Freeman achieves essentially an idealistic history: no tainted, biased, or discarded facts. Only after the outbreak actually occurred was Freeman able to read the reports and look at facility conditions and claim that in due time, an outbreak was bound to occur. Freeman creates a timeline of events which sequences the outbreak (the purchase of machinery, the lack of upkeep of the machinery, and the Listeria growth as a result), and his grand narrative is born.
Response: Emily’s comment for Brittany’s Article:
I felt like the information that was included in this CBS article was pretty similar to the article from the medical website. The major difference was the title of the article. When it just mentions Listeria outbreak caused from a couple of contaminations it does not catch my attention as much as the medical article does about 28 people dead from this particular outbreak. I was surprised about this different because I would assume that CBS grand narrative would include more emotional wording to pull in the audience. I also thought it was interesting to see that both articles had sited information from the CDC which included a lot of the numerical facts. Also, this article was written a week before the medical article, so the ‘facts’ have actually all changed since it was published. I think it is interesting that news can be presented in real time and everything seems like it is happening now and needs to be told right now and by tomorrow the facts about the incident might change and they will have to write another article about the same topic just to stay on top of the ‘new facts.’ But it is worth it to them to retell the same story again just so they can be seen as current and updated news.

Article 4: October 8, 2011

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/08/listeria-outbreak-death-toll-rises-to-21/
Sophie:
Just as the title of the article Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21 implies, the diction within the article is very serious. Instead of an author, it simply says associated press. The article is very brief and to the point. It doesn’t explain what the listeria outbreak is, it explains what is causing it and where the harm is being done. This article was found on foxnews.com which is obviously a widely known source. Since so many people look into fox news and it is known to be decently reliable, people feel as though they should take the outbreak very seriously since it is being portrayed that way. The way the article comes across reminds me of someone searching WebMD.com. If they have a runny nose, all of the sudden they have cancer. With the article, it gives off the impression that if you are so much as looking at a cantaloupe, you’re going to be infected with listeria. Of course they’re just trying to make viewers aware of what is going on, but in my opinion it is very extreme.
Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21 also states that officials are looking into the fact that animals getting around the patches of cantaloupe may have something to deal with the outbreak, so they need to look into it more. Well, given the fact that listeria is typically caused by animals, this would be a pretty safe assumption if you ask me.
What were more surprising to me within the article were the advertisements and related articles along the side. One in particular drips with irony. There is a picture of a small fruit that is orange (similar to the color of a cantaloupe) and the caption next to it says “How this strange 62-cent fruit is making Americans skinny”. People are dying of listeria from eating cantaloupe, a fruit, yet there is an article about a fruit that makes you skinnier. You would think most people who saw this would want to steer clear of fruits based off the outbreak, but if we reference back to our bodies unit, I am sure that plenty of people were intrigued by this and read it instead. Americans are so much more worried about their appearance rather than something that could truly affect them.
Although I am being quite critical about the article, it definitely gives me something to worry about based on some experiences I’ve had. Most people probably hear about it and don’t think it would happen to them, but they need to realize that it could. The article says that listeria is more deadly than other pathogens, such as salmonella and E. Coli. My cousin had to deal with a horrible case of E. Coli just by playing in the water when she was younger. She was nearly dead multiple times. Although she is better now, she still occasionally suffers from severe pain. For me, this puts into perspective how easy it may be that you, or someone you know or love could potentially be infected with a fatal pathogen even if you are doing nothing wrong.
Response: Lexi’s Comparison to Sophie’s Article

Listeria is spun and turned around in many articles, but it really would confuse someone reading the article I first analyzed, Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? In that article it really has such a laid back, don’t panic, it isn’t a huge pandemic sort of feel to it. Where as the article Sophie analyzed, Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21, takes on a very serious tone, making it seem like if you do not read this article and take every word seriously and take serious precaution, you will make the death toll reach twenty two. If I had thought I myself had possibly come down with possible symptoms of Listeria and had come across these two articles, I first would feel at ease from reading Listeria outbreak: How do I know if I have it? Then reading, Listeria Outbreak Death Toll Rises to 21 I would be in a frantic panic. The article states, “in 23 states, from California to the East Coast.” Making it seem like the whole nation is in a crucial state everyone getting sick and dying. Fox New and LA Times are on completely different sides of the political spectrum and so I ultimately think their ways of reporting and how they report the news have an impact no the tone that the story takes. Such different tones of a stories can really impact the way someone understands a story and how to interpret it into their daily lives.

Article 5: October 26, 2011

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_117947.html
Emily:
The source name for this article the MedlinePlus which says it is “Trusted Health Information for You,” but it also indicates that this service is provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. When the word “listeria” was typed in for a google search it was the seventh hit on the first page, but that only brought you to the main page of listeria on the website. Then, the topic ‘latest news’ had to be clicked and the article ‘listeria outbreak’ had to be selected to find the full article about this particular topic. The name of the article is called Death Toll from Listeria Outbreak Hits 28 with no indicated writer. It does mention that the information comes from the CDC reports. The CDC is another government based website called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The MedlinePlus website is a government based site which means there is no advertising present on the page. The website has particular quality guidelines for their articles: it must be appropriate, authoritative health information. Some requirements for the health content include the organization providing the information must provide, accurate, science-based information that complements or enhances the government information, the content is original and does not link to already produced information from other sites, and the website requires a clear differentiation between content and advertising.
This article provides a lot of facts about the subject and includes several direct quotes from professionals in the industry that have been providing information and news conferences and news releases. The article also includes were the listeriosis-linked deaths were located by state in the last couple of months and who were affected most by it. It indicates that people in the age range of 48-96 who are newborns, elderly, and pregnant women; typically anyone that has a weak immune system. After reading this article, I realized that I did not understand much about this particular disease because it was the first time I was exposed to this particular outbreak. I felt the article was missing general background information about listeria. I understood that the contamination grew from the poor sanitary conditions from the farm, but that is typical of disease and germ outbreak. They also mentioned that it could have been because of how the stored the fruit in the cold storage, but I didn’t realize why this would be a problem until I researched this particular disease and realized that it can still flourish in cold temperatures. I felt like this article has a helpful quick read to get the major updates about the outbreak, but it did not provide much content and background about this particular disease. It was as if I needed prior knowledge to completely understand this problem. Also, the language was pretty simple and there were not many medical terms that were hard to follow even though it was on a medical government website.
I think this article was presented like this because it they wanted to give their audience the quick facts and updates about the topic. If the reader needs more background information or wants more of an opinion about the topic, they can search for other articles that are more blog based. I feel like this article is written in a way to cover itself. It provides information from other people and other sources which indicates that it never actually provides information itself. This may mean that the attention cannot be directed on them if the information they present later becomes false. They really don’t have any attachment or consequences to their information. It is weird to read an article on a website that is only information from other sources. I feel like there is not credit to the article because the writer is masked, so I don’t feel comfortable about the information presented.
Response: Jared’s comments on Emily’s article

The perspective in Death Toll From Listeria Hits 28 from Medline Plus seems mainly fear based, and doesn’t aim to blame a particular group or person. It merely mentions that it was caused from unsanitary conditions at the farm. Seeing as it is from a “.gov” website and has the words “med” and “health” all over the site, it mainly appears, as Emily stated, as though it is a service provided by the government to inform people about listeria. That is, where it grows, how it grows, who it attacks, and where it has attacked. In comparison to the New York Times article Listeria Outbreak Traced to Cantaloupe Packing Shed, it shares some of those same qualities but fails to match with the stance taken. The New York Times article stands and supports the belief that the third party auditors are to blame for the outbreak due to their unregulated inspections and potentially unqualified workers.

Comparing the Medline Plus article with the New York Times is like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas Medline Plus takes an informative stance, the New York Times is specifically blaming someone.

Conclusion:

We feel like this project was helpful to see that there is this grand narrative that is going on around us that we are not completely aware of! A couple of the articles sited their information was from CDC and everyone just wants to include the facts and avoid the opinions while other articles are interesting in pointing figures! One of the most interesting presented in class was that we can pick anything we want from the list that we are provided. It is as if we appear to be free with what we do, read, and learn in our lives. But if someone is providing a path and telling us how to do everything behind the scenes, are we really free? This is the same idea with these articles; these seem to be the same facts that are all coming from the same source. What parts did they leave out that these news outlets are not digging to find out? Whose job is it to find this type of information? If it is not provided in the original ‘grand narrative’ is it gone forever?