I’m a firm believer that nothing should be sacred. If Carnegie-Mellon says buying local vegetables only shaves 4% off the carbon footprint, I can live with that. I’ll still buy because I’m investing in the community, it’s fresher and most importantly, usually tastes better. So this post at The Atlantic’s food section, while painfully self-absorbed (never heard of this guy, or the “controversy” he apparently touched off), asks a reasonable question:
Lost in all the huffing and puffing over my omission, however, was the gist of the underlying question itself: to what extent are animals raised under free-range conditions prone to contracting diseases that can affect humans?