So how does antibiotic-free meat actually relate to lack of microbial safety? I mean, we're talking about meat that's going to be cooked (in theory) to the right temperature anyway, how is chemical-free meat going to be any more risky than meat with added chemicals and hormones? Source please.Further, you might be forgetting that some people might (*gasp*) care about other aspects of food production beyond the microbial stuff, which I have yet to be convinced is an issue with hormone and antibiotic free meat...

Dr. Powell, thank you for your reply.I suppose I should rephrase my criticism of the piece - I feel your focus is too narrow. You are limiting your comments to the microbial safety of fresh produce, which is not even what the Chipotle ad campaign is about. I realize that your produce comments fit well with your 'don't eat poop' campaign, but seems to be a an unwarranted cheap shot at Chipotle.Worse, you are insinuating that antibiotics in animal feed are not in fact a human health concern. This year Stine et. al published a paper in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents regarding swine from a confined animal feeding facility where tetracycline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetracycline) had been in use for over 20 years. Examining samples from feed, hog houses, waste lagoon, soil, surface water and well water, they found that 77% of E. coli and 68% of enterococci (what you might refer to as "poop bacteria") isolated were tetracycline resistant.Further, a review by Heuer et al in 2006, published in Clinical Infectious Diseases shows that these antimicrobial resistance genes found in bacteria which are in and around animals can spread freely to those in human hosts. In short, what happens to the health of the animals we raise can affect our health as well.I encourage you to provide a more well balanced commentary regarding these issues. While I tend to favour doing background research before making my mind up about something, I don't doubt that some members of the public take your messages quite seriously, as you hold the position of scientific director of the International Food Safety Network. It is a disservice to them, and perhaps even irresponsible to provide such a lopsided view of things, though I admit that low-brow, low-fact slogans do fit more easily on t-shirts.Until then, I remainunconvincedP.S. In the meantime your readers might benefit from a visit tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance for more information on this subject

Dr. Powell, I suppose I must rephrase myself. You are correct when you say that you did not insinuate anything. Perhaps I chose my words haphazardly, so let me try and be a little more clear - when you say "Kudos to Chipotle for capitalizing on hucksterism", you are explicitly stating that there is no merit to antibiotic or hormone-free meat products (as that is the basis of their billboard ad campaign).In case you are confused, the problem word in your sentence is "hucksterism". Here are two definitions......one from the Oxford English Dictionary:A person ready to make his profit of anything in a mean or petty way; one who basely barters his services, etc., for gain; a mercenary; an overreacher of others....another from the Wikipedia:A huckster is a seller of small articles, usually of cheap or shoddy quality, or one engaged in haggling or making petty bargains, that is, a certain type of peddler or hawker.So ... you state that antibiotic and hormone free meat is a some kind of a scam. And now we find ourselves returned to my original question (I'm getting tired, are you?), and that is : Why are you trying to convince people that there are no human health consequences involved with the use of antibiotics in farm animals? I realize the importance of making sure people are not covered in their own feces (and the feces of others), but in "All natural hucksterism?" you do so at the cost another issue - antibiotic resistant bacteria, which some may know as "superbugs".Let me share with you the tale of a young British Royal Marine cut down at 18 in his prime by MSRA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which would have been treatable had it not acquired a resistance to methicillin, the type of antibiotic commonly used to treat it.Here is the full story: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2083867.eceI would appreciate some scientific direction from you relating to the use antibiotics and hormones in our farm animals. If this is, as you have stated, not a human health concern, then perhaps we should adopt a similar forced medication program for our feces-encrusted citizens.As always,unconvinced