Jennie Bourgeois

Well … all of the news stories and interviews over the past couple of weeks has finally gotten to me and I decided to respond to an article that was published in Houston with the following …

************************

I wish I could understand the rationale behind some of the statements that continue to be repeated concerning the economic impact to the oyster harvesters. I am sorry that it is going to cost money to make oysters safe … however, California has proven that doing so is 100% effective in saving lives … how much money is that worth?

Had proper processes been in place to treat oysters, my father would be alive today. His only mistake was eating oysters in Louisiana rather than in California. Who knew that you would be actually safer in California than in Louisiana where they are harvested? California has done the responsible thing and has passed a law prohibiting untreated raw oysters … this has been 100% effective and there have been no deaths since that time. What more studies or proof do you need? California does not have people dying each year … and the Gulf Coast has 15 people dying each year.

The article states the number of deaths is small in comparison. No death is insignificant and certainly 15 senseless deaths of innocent individuals is unacceptable. It would not matter to me if 1 person died a year or 100 died a year ….But then — to add in the fact that you know the bacteria, you know the cause AND you know the treatment to prevent it from happening but you choose to not do anything and just let those 15 or more people die each year because it is easier or cheaper? Really?

This is not a regional issue … Louisiana oysters are shipped to almost every state in the US. All consumers nationwide potentially have the risk of consuming a contaminated raw oyster. The only difference is that if they are not in a Gulf Coast state, the doctors where they live may not be as familiar with vibrio and it may go undiagnosed and unreported.

I don’t care that it increases the cost. Pasteurizing milk increases the cost of milk too, but we do it for safety reasons. Oysters are a delicacy … and they may be more costly to those who enjoy them … but at least if they are all treated and safe, people will not die from eating them.

Please don’t tell me that treating raw oysters to protect the 15 people a year from dying is a terrible thing to do because it will hurt the oyster harvester’s business. I understand there are many small businesses that harvest oysters and that there may be an impact to those businesses. Why don’t you consider the impact to a family from losing their father, their husband, to a flesh eating bacteria from raw oysters.  I think our impact is to a much greater extent than those oyster harvesters can ever imagine. They have 15 employees … we have 20 family members who are still grieving over losing him in such a tragic, and preventable way. I don’t have pity for their economic impact.   If they want to stay in business they need to sell safe product.

I am so tired of hearing how post harvest processing compromises the taste of the oysters. I have heard exactly the opposite from people in California who say they are just fine. It depends on which method of post harvest processing is used. California still consumes a large number of oysters despite being responsible to their consumers. I don’t see how their argument can hold water considering the fact that it is already being done in California and oyster sales are still fine.

You don’t want to consume food that has gamma rays and potential risks, but you would rather consume food that is KNOWN to be contaminated with vibrio bacteria and has the potential to kill you should you happen to eat them on a day that your immune system is not very strong due to a cold or sinus infection or some unknown medical condition not yet discovered? I would not suggested irradiation as the post harvest treated process of choice … but this argument is absurd that you would rather trade a known risk with known consequences for an unknown risk with unknown consequences.

I am sorry that the process to serve safe oysters could take small oystermen years. FDA has been working with them for the past 11 years on this issue and they have completely ignored the warnings, the statistics and have chosen to not do the responsible thing in making their products safe for all consumers. Don’t come now and say that it is too expensive or they can’t do it that fast … it has been 11 years at least and they have done nothing to move toward post harvest processing. They have instead been kicking and screaming all the way.

This matter cannot be handled on the regional level obviously. If it could be handled regionally, it would have already been handled. Instead, the regional level believes 15 deaths a year is acceptable .. FDA does not.. nor do I. We can’t let those who depend on oysters for their livelihood determine the safety practices for raw oysters — that is a huge conflict of interest, which is what has gotten us into the situation we are in now.

The last sentence of this article says it all in a nutshell … “to keep seafood in the Gulf sustainable and safe”. That is my point exactly! Their first priority is economic sustainability … if they can take care of that .. then they will worry about safety secondly. Safety and concern for human life should be the first and foremost priority — not money.

Share on Facebook

Comments(0)