We on this blog should be candidates for the jury in the suits by the two mothers against Organic Pastures. Actually, we’d probably all be disqualified for knowing too much and having strong opinions.

I’ve been critical of Mark McAfee’s handling of this situation in the past, but I’d like to come to his defense in making reference to the sick kids as having consumed spinach. I think he’s referring to what he was told in the initial hours after the kids became ill, by parents and state authorities.

People have since changed their stories, and the moms have in previous postings pressed their contention that not all the kids consumed spinach during the days before they became ill. It’s important to keep in mind that there have been all kinds of inconsistencies—both in what’s been posted here and what the California public health authorities state. I went through a number of these inconsistencies in a posting last month—to the effect that three of the six cases are in some doubt or confusion about what pathogen they had, what they consumed, where they consumed it, and even the sex of one of the children.

I’m not sure if Mark is making such a statement intentionally, but by now raising his contention that they all consumed spinach, he is reinforcing the fact that lots about these cases is confusing. The stories will only count for something if and when depositions are taken in preparation for a trial. At that point, lawyers can cross-examine the parents, children, public health officials, etc., etc. to point out inconsistencies.

I suspect at that point the confusion will be even more pronounced than it is now. So perhaps we should be glad we won’t be on that jury.

***

In response to Diane Reifschneider’s excellent comment on my previous post, I believe the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has confined itself only to cases that directly affect the rights of consumers to access nutrient-rich foods.