Knowing that foodborne disease outbreaks are on the decline isn't the full answer. Compared to those of 20 years ago, the start of the statistical period, are today's outbreaks more or less serious, or about the same? Considering that a foodborne disease can include anything from a mild stomach upset to a dirt nap, it's important to know the seriousness trends.
Tabarrok plotted data including unconfirmed etiology, which is bound to be more subjective. Limiting the data to confirmed causes displays the opposite trend.
Including the unconfirmed etiology data is better for getting an idea of how much food-born disease there is for the purpose of establishing public health policy, but it is worse for establishing trends.
Oh, I meant to add, Krugman should have tried to make a case statistically. Had he done so, he could have found evidence that marginally supported him, but not to an interesting degree.
I think part of successful punditry is knowing that there is not very much that is remarkable if you know the statistics, therefore, if you want to keep your job and be honest, it is better not to know.
It is entirely reasonable to assert that the increased instances of confirmed etiology actually undermine Krugman's argument to an even greater degree, especially given the downtrend in illnesses supected of being food poisoning.
It seems reasonable to me that better elucidation of the causes of an illness outbreak might be evidence of a food inspection system that is performing better than it had in the past, rather than worse. This is especially reasonable when the reports of all illnesses suspected of being food-borne are actually declining.
"It seems reasonable to me that better elucidation of the causes of an illness outbreak might be evidence of a food inspection system that is performing better than it had in the past, rather than worse."
Food inspectors do not do that job. That is done by state and local health departments and accumulated by the CDC.
If you look at the reports, you see that many of the "suspect" or "unknown" incidents are a small number of people with an unknown illness from an unknown source. That part of the data is prone to wild inconsistancies depending on the biases of the person making the determination. There are undoubtedly a large number of cases that go undetected, and a large number of false positives. It is worthwhile making those guesses, because it leads to a better estimate of total food poisoning cases and allows for more informed public policy.
However, those guesses are not helpful for analyzing trends. Incidents with known causes are not prone to that inconsistancy. They are much more useful for analyzing trends.
Tsk, Tsk, lannyshoo. You really are out of your league and oh, oh so gullible. Did you read Prof. Krugman's piece from today? Of course you didn't, because if you did you would have realized that Prof. Krugman never, never said outbreaks of fodd poisoning are up. No. What he said is that he is seeing--anecdotally--more news stories reporting food-born illnesses and--even more improtant if you were paying attnetion, which you weren't--Krugman writes that people have stopped having faith in the ability of the USA to regulate its food supply. He never talks about a rise in food-born illnesses, therefore your point that you have to adjust an increase in food poisoining cases to overall population is meaningless (as is much of what you have to say).
Now, lammyshoo, you can go on blindly believing those who are intent on deceiving you--or you can pick yourself by your bootstraps and do what thinking people do before posting on Megan's fine website------THINK FOR YOURSELF. I'm getting tired of you making such a fool of yourself.
Will Krugman ever tire of taking dumbass shots at Friedman?
I mean, the man doth protest too much.
Krugman never, never said outbreaks of fodd poisoning are up. No. What he said ... if you were paying attnetion, which you weren't --Krugman writes that people have stopped having faith in the ability of the USA to regulate its food supply.
I see, what Krugman is saying is that people are stupid, because with outbreaks of food poisoning going down, they have lost faith in the ability of the USA to regulate their food supply.
And why are people stupid like this? "I blame Milton Friedman."
I care not at all what the media cares to write about, I care tremendously about the state of our economy, safety and regulatory regime.
If it is the case that actual incidences of food borne illnesses are going up (i.e. that the current regulatory regime is reducing the safety outcomes of our country), that is a big story. If he is writing about some stuff he is seeing in the news, that is totally uninteresting.
My wife just gave birth to our first soon, so anecdotally I have noticed that within our household the amount of sleep the average adult is receiving has gone down tremenously. If I wrote that this means the US is undergoing a sleep deprivation crisis then I would correctly be lambasted as a fool.
Paul Krugman was a professor of mine in college. He was, correctly, strongly critical of economists and other commentators who substituted their opinions and anecdotal evidence for hard facts.
Given that standard it is appropriate to be critical of him when he makes the same mistake.
Lanniychiu, if my points are "ridiculous" give me some concrete examples. Instead you give me some sob story about your wife adopting a child, which I don't care about. Show me where Krugman is wrong, using Krugman's actual words rather than what you incorrectly believe based on what some third party said. Think for yourself for once.
It’s time to get back to the business of ensuring that American food is safe.
They never had enough votes to abolish the F.D.A. or eliminate meat inspections, but they could and did set about making the agencies charged with ensuring food safety ineffective.
Who’s responsible for the new fear of eating? Some blame globalization; some blame food-producing corporations; some blame the Bush administration. But I blame Milton Friedman.
That’s why I blame the food safety crisis on Milton Friedman
Without question, America’s food safety system has degenerated over the past six years.
Unless crisis="media citations" and "Milton Friedman"="media", there seems to be more here than you are suggesting.
What you list up there may be what Krugman wrote, Mindles, but that was last year.
Lucy was referring to what Krugman wrote on June 13th, 2008. And nowhere in the text of what he wrote did I see the words: "outbreaks of fodd(sic) poisoning are up."
Knowing that foodborne disease outbreaks are on the decline isn't the full answer. Compared to those of 20 years ago, the start of the statistical period, are today's outbreaks more or less serious, or about the same? Considering that a foodborne disease can include anything from a mild stomach upset to a dirt nap, it's important to know the seriousness trends.
Of course it's not -- "data" is a plural word.
Tabarrok plotted data including unconfirmed etiology, which is bound to be more subjective. Limiting the data to confirmed causes displays the opposite trend.
Year, outbreaks, cases
1998-368-11651
1999-368-11913
2000-448-14112
2001-455-13955
2002-494-16117
2003-409-15569
2004-519-16867
2005-410-10781
2006-623-16904
Including the unconfirmed etiology data is better for getting an idea of how much food-born disease there is for the purpose of establishing public health policy, but it is worse for establishing trends.
Oh, I meant to add, Krugman should have tried to make a case statistically. Had he done so, he could have found evidence that marginally supported him, but not to an interesting degree.
I think part of successful punditry is knowing that there is not very much that is remarkable if you know the statistics, therefore, if you want to keep your job and be honest, it is better not to know.
Njorl,
It is entirely reasonable to assert that the increased instances of confirmed etiology actually undermine Krugman's argument to an even greater degree, especially given the downtrend in illnesses supected of being food poisoning.
Yancey, I can't see how you can think that. What is your reasoning?
The job of a NY Times columnist is to argue for more power for government. Actually matching up with reality is neither here nor there.
Krugman is doing his job to the best of his ability.
Njorl,
It seems reasonable to me that better elucidation of the causes of an illness outbreak might be evidence of a food inspection system that is performing better than it had in the past, rather than worse. This is especially reasonable when the reports of all illnesses suspected of being food-borne are actually declining.
wouldn't you also need to adjust the numbers for population growth, further undermining Krugman's arguments?
"It seems reasonable to me that better elucidation of the causes of an illness outbreak might be evidence of a food inspection system that is performing better than it had in the past, rather than worse."
Food inspectors do not do that job. That is done by state and local health departments and accumulated by the CDC.
If you look at the reports, you see that many of the "suspect" or "unknown" incidents are a small number of people with an unknown illness from an unknown source. That part of the data is prone to wild inconsistancies depending on the biases of the person making the determination. There are undoubtedly a large number of cases that go undetected, and a large number of false positives. It is worthwhile making those guesses, because it leads to a better estimate of total food poisoning cases and allows for more informed public policy.
However, those guesses are not helpful for analyzing trends. Incidents with known causes are not prone to that inconsistancy. They are much more useful for analyzing trends.
Tsk, Tsk, lannyshoo. You really are out of your league and oh, oh so gullible. Did you read Prof. Krugman's piece from today? Of course you didn't, because if you did you would have realized that Prof. Krugman never, never said outbreaks of fodd poisoning are up. No. What he said is that he is seeing--anecdotally--more news stories reporting food-born illnesses and--even more improtant if you were paying attnetion, which you weren't--Krugman writes that people have stopped having faith in the ability of the USA to regulate its food supply. He never talks about a rise in food-born illnesses, therefore your point that you have to adjust an increase in food poisoining cases to overall population is meaningless (as is much of what you have to say).
Now, lammyshoo, you can go on blindly believing those who are intent on deceiving you--or you can pick yourself by your bootstraps and do what thinking people do before posting on Megan's fine website------THINK FOR YOURSELF. I'm getting tired of you making such a fool of yourself.
Will Krugman ever tire of taking dumbass shots at Friedman?
I mean, the man doth protest too much.
Krugman never, never said outbreaks of fodd poisoning are up. No. What he said ... if you were paying attnetion, which you weren't --Krugman writes that people have stopped having faith in the ability of the USA to regulate its food supply.
I see, what Krugman is saying is that people are stupid, because with outbreaks of food poisoning going down, they have lost faith in the ability of the USA to regulate their food supply.
And why are people stupid like this? "I blame Milton Friedman."
Lady Lucy,
To be blunt, your points are ridiculous.
I care not at all what the media cares to write about, I care tremendously about the state of our economy, safety and regulatory regime.
If it is the case that actual incidences of food borne illnesses are going up (i.e. that the current regulatory regime is reducing the safety outcomes of our country), that is a big story. If he is writing about some stuff he is seeing in the news, that is totally uninteresting.
My wife just gave birth to our first soon, so anecdotally I have noticed that within our household the amount of sleep the average adult is receiving has gone down tremenously. If I wrote that this means the US is undergoing a sleep deprivation crisis then I would correctly be lambasted as a fool.
Paul Krugman was a professor of mine in college. He was, correctly, strongly critical of economists and other commentators who substituted their opinions and anecdotal evidence for hard facts.
Given that standard it is appropriate to be critical of him when he makes the same mistake.
Lanniychiu, if my points are "ridiculous" give me some concrete examples. Instead you give me some sob story about your wife adopting a child, which I don't care about. Show me where Krugman is wrong, using Krugman's actual words rather than what you incorrectly believe based on what some third party said. Think for yourself for once.
They never had enough votes to abolish the F.D.A. or eliminate meat inspections, but they could and did set about making the agencies charged with ensuring food safety ineffective.
Unless crisis="media citations" and "Milton Friedman"="media", there seems to be more here than you are suggesting.
Hopefully I'm following this correctly...
What you list up there may be what Krugman wrote, Mindles, but that was last year.
Lucy was referring to what Krugman wrote on June 13th, 2008. And nowhere in the text of what he wrote did I see the words: "outbreaks of fodd(sic) poisoning are up."
So Lucy is correct. Good catch there Lucy.