Search Farmer Goes to Market

Search Site
Saturday March 24, 2018

Despite some recent food-borne illness outbreaks dominating the evening news, the real story your shoppers may not have heard is this: Overall, food is safer now than it likely has been in history, and for the most part, it continues to get safer. Here are a few success stories your customers may not have heard:

■ The number of food-borne disease outbreaks reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009 and 2010 — the latest years for which tracking summaries are available — was down almost one-third compared to the yearly average for the five-year period before, according to the Center’s latest report on common food-borne illness outbreaks.

The 675 and 852 outbreaks reported to CDC for, respectively, 2009 and 2010, resulted in about 30,000 cases of illness, 1,184 hospitalizations and 23 deaths.  (CDC defines an outbreak as any reported disease that can be traced back to a common food and agent that sickens at least two people.) Only about two-thirds of the reported outbreaks were pinned on a specific cause—and of that two-thirds, only about three-fourths went beyond merely suspected to confirmed by labwork. Of those confirmed causes, norovirus was the most common cause of an outbreak, accounting for more than four in 10 outbreaks and nearly four in 10 illnesses.

Norovirus, which typically causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and stomach pain is estimated to affect around 267 million people every year. Although it does kill more 200,000 people annually worldwide—generally those in less developed countries and the very young, elderly and immuno-suppressed—in healthy people it usually cures itself without hospitalization or treatment. CDC notes the reported decline in food-borne disease outbreaks reported came largely because of a drop in norovirus outbreaks. Because norovirus can be spread in many ways, including not just food and water but also direct contact between persons and even contact with a table or floor that’s been contaminated by someone carrying the virus, pinning down a source of outgreak can be difficult and demonstrates the complexity of tracking, reporting and eventually controlling disease outbreaks that may or may not be foodborne. In 2009, the CDC’s Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System transitioned to a new online data entry system. That system began taking reports of outbreaks attributable not only to food and water, as the previous system, but also to disease transmitted through water, person-to-person contact, contact with animals, environmental contamination, and indeterminate means. That change in reporting, CDC suspects, may have led to more appropriate classification of outbreaks that were previously blamed on food when in fact they were caused by other sources.

Outbreaks per million people

Among outbreaks in which CDC was able to confirm both a cause and a food vehicle, the largest number of outbreaks was attributed to the bacteria Campylobacter in unpasteurized dairy products, followed by Salmonella in eggs, and E. coli O157 in beef. The pathogen-food pair most responsible for number of sicknesses were Salmonella in eggs, Salmonella in sprouts and Salmonella in vine-stalk vegetables. CDC notes the large number of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized dairy products is consistent with findings that more outbreaks occur in states that permit the sale of unpasteurized dairy products; 60 percent of states now permit sales of raw milk in some form.

Among the 766 outbreaks with a known single setting where food was consumed, only 21 percent were caused by food consumed in a private home. In contrast, nearly half were blamed on food consumed in a restaurant or deli.

■ CDC's latest report, in April, from its Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, or FoodNet, reports the results of surveillance in 10 U.S. sites for all laboratory-confirmed infections caused by selected germs that are commonly spread through food. With one notable exception--vibrio, a bacterial infection usually associated with eating undercooked seafood--all other foodborne pathogens remained below target levels set by CDC for reduction based on levels from 1996 through 1998.

Longterm trends in foodborne illness

The incidence of infections caused by Cryptosporidium, Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella, E. coli O157, and Yersinia all remained essentially unchanged from the previous two years. After substantial declines in the early years of FoodNet surveillance, the incidence of Campylobacter infection has increased to its highest level since 2000.

All is not as it appears in this debate, new studies suggest

Three myths about food deserts

The March issue of the peer-reviewed journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy is a special issue on healthy lifestyles, particularly focused on the perennial issue of obesity. It has several interesting studies that refute some common assumptions, including:

No time for fast food?

USDA researcher Karen Hamrick, working with Ohio University Economics Professor Charlene Kalenkoski, examined numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American Time Use Survey data, which measures all activities in sampled households over a 24-hour period, matched against results from adults 20 years or older who had completed the the Eating and Health Module of the BLS survey. Hamrick discovered that consumers who face “time poverty,” that is, those who had a shortage of discretionary time left over after taking care of the necessities like sleeping, personal grooming and work, had as you might expect, different eating patterns than not-time-poor individuals. The surprise in her findings? Being time-poor was associated with a lower likelihood people would purchase fast food. Those time-poor individuals were 4 percent less apt to turn to fast food. Though Hamrick’s study didn’t attempt to gauge the stated reasons for choosing fast food or not, she guesses her seemingly illogical finding may owe to the fact that fast food involves losing time by waiting in line. She did find that time-poor people tended to eat less, which helps support her hypothesis, eating and drinking about 2.6 times per day vs. 2.9 for the full sample. One bit of good news: Hamrick suggests that if time-poor consumers are too rushed to either prepare meals or to stand in line at a fast-food restaurant, the next logical source of their meals may in fact be prepared meals from grocery stores.

Food stamps in food deserts…where they end up.

USDA researchers looked into whether increasing the amount of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefit levels would incentivize inner city poor to travel to outlying areas to shop for food at supermarkets and big boxes, or simply spend the additional funds at local alternatives. The authors used monthly county-level data on SNAP redemptions by store type over a three-year period and mathematically modeled the percentage of SNAP redemptions at superstores as a function of maximum monthly benefit levels, after accounting for confounding factors like food prices, store density by store type and other economic and policy factors. They found that increasing SNAP dollars can potentially encourage SNAP participants to make use of lower-cost, less accessible food shopping alternatives, however that willingness is heavily influenced by the cost of getting to the stores. Their suggestion? In light of the apparent lack of political will to increase SNAP funding, government should consider expanding flexibility to convert a portion of their benefits as “access dollars”—that is, allowing them to use them to buy gas, bus fare and other transportation costs.

Are school kids fatter in food deserts?

Arkansas ag economists examined the relationship between food deserts and child obesity, using data on obesity rates in a panel of 230 school districts in Arkansas, determined from school children’s measured height and weight. The school districts were classified as food desert districts by developing district-level measures of food access based on food store location data. Controlling for a variety of other factors that could confound the results, the researchers estimated there was no statistically significant difference in childhood obesity between schoolkids in food deserts or not in food deserts. “So should private and public initiatives targeting the food desert and childhood obesity issue be discarded, given our results?” the researchers asked. On the contrary, they argue exactly the opposite: “Given the importance and enormous attention this issue has received, not only from researchers from various fields but also from policy-makers and the current First Lady of the United States, there is no question that more work is needed….”

Do more groceries equate to more fruits and vegetables?

Research by ag economists at University of Nebraska-Lincoln analyzed how changes in income and food access affected actual purchases of fruits and vegetables by households. The authors used a the Nielsen Home-Scan panel data set to study the actual shopping patterns of households and attempt to disentangle the effects of food access from the effects of income. Their results suggest that improving access to food would, in fact, make the non-poor residents in a food desert buy slightly more fruits and vegetables. However, increasing access to food stores, according their study, would only be expected to cause the poor people in the former food desert to increase their consumption of unhealthy foods, with no change—or even a decrease—in consumption of healthier foods like fruits and vegetables. Government policy actions aimed at alleviating healthy food accessibility or affordability problems in isolation are not likely to be effective, the authors caution.

CDC says leafy greens are causing illness. Correct?

The media's not sure which food to blame for CDC's recent food poisoning summary

It was a case of "good news and bad news," lamented the blogger for a Minneapolis lawyer specializing in food-poisoning cases: The bad? The U.S. Centers for Disease Control released a pre-publication version of a study scheduled to appear in print in March regarding the suspected sources of food-poisoning outbreaks over a decade. It appeared to implicate leafy green vegetables in the greatest proportion of food-poisoning outbreaks over the last decade. The good? That same week, a new Oxford University study found that a vegetarian diet can reduce the risk of heart disease by one-third.

What's a vegetable-loving foodie to do?

But as is often the case today, the media was, at best, sloppy in reporting the real meaning of the CDC study, as well as the caution's the study's own authors made in interpreting their data. The CDC study, “Attribution of Foodborne Illnesses, Hospitalizations, and Deaths to Food Commodities by using Outbreak Data, United States, 1998–2008," attempted to track the individual food source of 13,352 suspected foodborne illness outbreaks between 1998 and 2008. The authors concluded, “More illnesses were attributed to leafy vegetables (22 percent) than to any other commodity; illnesses associated with leafy vegetables were the second most frequent cause of hospitalizations (14 percent) and the fifth most frequent cause of death (6 percent).”

And as is typical of many food-related media reports today, headlines were alarmist and grossly overgeneralized, including:

  • CDC: Beware the leafy greens, poultry and dairy"
  • "CDC ranks foods most likely to make Americans sick"
  • "Food Contamination: The Riskiest Stuff to Eat"
  • "Veggies To Blame For Majority Of Foodborne Illnesses."

However, the report's senior author, Patricia Griffin, a food-borne disease expert at CDC, cautioned USA Today that her study isn't meant to be a interpreted as a "risk of illness per serving" list for consumers. Instead, the statistics are meant only to help regulators and the food industry target efforts to improve the safety of food.

“Unfortunately, this report leaves out some very important details about the causes of foodborne illnesses, specifically how and where pathogens are introduced into the food supply,” Scott Horsfall, CEO of California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement said. “Because many produce items, particularly leafy greens, are eaten in their raw form, it is extremely important that safe handling is practiced throughout the supply chain." Norovirus, for example, which was implicated in about 60 percent of produce-related cases is almost always spread via food handling after the produce leaves the farm, he said. Other studies have likewise questioned the assumption that chicken is a relatively high source of food-poisoning, which this recent study identified as the food most likely to cause food-related death. Those studies have suggested chicken is merely a proxy for eating in a restaurant (because most people who eat out eat chicken), which is the real risk factor for such food illness.

Much of what the CDC study said never made it into print. For example:

  • The study authors included only outbreaks reported to CDC's monitoring system in which the reporting agency was able to blame both a food and a single germ, virus, chemical or other agent. If the report cited statistical evidence from an investigation of an epidemic or lab evidence that actually found the bug in the food at question, CDC considered the food implicated. Any of the other weaker criteria CDC permits reporting agencies to use--from their previous experience leading them to suspect a food, to evidence like simply finding the germ on a farm from which the food was known to have come--led them to label the food in those cases to be merely "suspect." Even though those food "suspects" made up a large part of the study's dataset, it was impossible to review the documentation for all those investigations. So CDC instead made an educated guess to include them anyway, based on their examination of a smaller set of 117 cases, in which they found 65 percent of "suspect" food cases ended up convincingly implicating the food. That finding, however, leaves open the question of whether 35 percent of the suspect foods in their dataset were being unfairly blamed.
  • Of the 13,352 food poisoning outbreaks they studied, the specific food source was only identified in 4,887 of them, or just 37 percent. For almost half of those 4,887 outbreaks, the “implicated food vehicle” contained ingredients from two or more food categories. Pie, for insance, could have included grains, fruits, oils, sugars and dairy. For those more complex foods, CDC simply allocated the blame across all ingredient foodstuffs in the same proportion which they found they were to blame in single-food cases. The authors themselves recognized that decision biased their results toward food commodities that tended to show up in individual-food outbreaks.
  • The research team recognized in their paper that dairy was shouldering an unfair amount of blame, both because it featured in a high number of the complex foods for which a single agent couldn't be blamed, and also because the high incidence of food poisoning blamed on people consuming raw milk were assigned to the entire milk category. Modeling in the future should separate those categories, the study recommended.
  • The study authors purposely included only individual illness cases that were a part of some larger outbreak, reasoning that because larger outbreaks are investigated more thoroughly than small, sporadic ones, they would have more success in finding a culprit food. They recognized that decision biased their results toward the causes implicated in large outbreaks; however, they argued that large outbreaks "often represent system failures that have resulted in smaller, undetected outbreaks...." Identifying culprits in small outbreaks and sporadic incidents may not be possible with any method, they recognized.
  • Even if the foods are blamed fairly and accurately, the researchers warned, their study looked at only the relative contribution of each food commodity to cases, not the actual contribution. In other words, the more foods are the eaten, the more likely they are to be blamed in the study's model. "When food commodities are consumed frequently, even those with a low risk for pathogen transmission per serving may result in a high number of illnesses.," they said.
  • Many of the illnesses attributed to vegetables in the study were causeb by norovirus. Norovirus is seldom carried by foodstuffs from the farm, but is instead often spread by cooks and food handlers. Therefore, although it's important for grocers to be aware of that source of potential contamination, it's important to note that it's an indictment of the system more than of any individual food commodity. It also underscores the importance of consumers handling and cooking foods carefully themselves.

Meanwhile, CDC officials emphasized that their report should not be seen as discouraging people from eating vegetables. The bottom line, added the CDC study: "...attribution of foodborne-associated illnesses and deaths to specific commodities is useful for prioritizing public health activities; however, additional data on the specific food consumed is needed to assess per-serving risk. The risk for foodborne illness is just one part of the risk–benefit equation for foods; other factors, such as the health benefits of consuming a diet high in fruits and vegetables, must also be considered."


Five ways you may be raising shopper suspicion

Trust in your store brand is a highly perishable commodity. Are these five increasingly common food-marketing claims risking shopper suspicion?

In today's environment of suffocating margins and increasingly cut-throat retail competition, it's understandable that grocers are looking for every edge to add value to each category. But today, more than ever, consumers want real value. They are harshly questioning anything that doesn’t contribute to that value. The real value you can offer them is the trust that you’re bringing them wholesome, food that’s responsibly and thoughtfully produced and delivered. Some of today's "absence labeling" food marketing trends, however, may be risking that very trust. Roper Public Affairs, for instance, surveyed 1,001 U.S. consumers, reminding grocers of what consumers most value in their store.

What do shoppers really trust in?

Slapping point-of-purchase merchandising information on product categories to take advantage of questionable marketing claims popular with the media and alternative food-system advocates may seem an easy upsell. But trust is a perishable commodity, and it is not in human nature to be thankful to the person who reminds us we were played for a fool. Here are five current marketing claims that could leave you in that vulnerable position.

Caution! Your credibility is at riskLocal. Despite its apparent popularity with both shoppers and retailers, "local" is an issue that could turn to bite. Recent research shows the trust issue is beginning to surface, particularly when those products are found in national chains and big-box stores. Shoppers are often incredulous to discover some definitions of "local" refer to products sourced only within the borders of a state or as far away as 400 miles. In addition to that problem with definition, local carries additional threats to the grocer. The "community food security" and “community-supported agriculture” movements that often lie at the heart of local-food advocacy don’t permit a valid role for food chain middlemen--that means you. Local food in the eyes of those small-chain advocates usually means direct-to-consumer and farmers markets, not a locally supplied supermarket.

Caution! Your credibility is at risk

Hormone-free. Increasingly loose play with the "H" word in food labeling is inviting the credibility fiasco that has arisen from the rbST-milk labeling issue (“From cows not treated with rbST, but there’s no significant difference shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows”), or the hormone-free chicken puffery (growth hormone use has been illegal in U.S. chickens for nearly four decades, so every chicken is raised without hormones.) The fact is indisputable: The hormonal growth promotants that are approved for use by farmers in the United States have decades of research behind them to prove they pose no threat to human health. So grocers can try to build the case that "hormone-free" is really meant not as a health and wellness claim, but as a sign they support the small- and natural-farming movement. Unfortunately, virtually all consumer research shows shoppers still associate hormone-free with a health claim. That paradox invites suspicion as the truth of their safety comes to light.

Caution! Your credibility is at risk

Antibiotic-free. Like hormone-free, antibiotic-free is a risky gamble. The wellness claims of antibiotic-free are simply not sustainable. For instance:

  • Despite vocal arguments to the contrary, no scientific evidence supports the claim that antibiotic use in animals has caused human diseases that may spread from the farm through food to become untreatable. Opponents of farm antibiotic use are instead mixing their metaphors: Correctly recognizing that resistance of human diseases to antibiotics humans over-consume is a growing threat, but incorrectly claiming it's farm antibiotic use that is the root cause.
  • The claim that 70 percent to 80 percent of all antibiotics are wasted simply making animals grow faster is wrong, based on inflated calculations that include drugs approved years ago but never sold in the United States, and over-estimates that assume farmers medicate all their animals throughout their lives at the maximum permitted dosage. They don’t.
  • Arguments that focus the blame for failing human antibiotics on farmers ignore the reality that, according to experts, at least 95 percent of the problem is easily demonstrated as being caused by human antibiotic over-use and abuse. Focusing attention on that inconvenient truth not only risks the grocer's credibility as a seller of more-costly "antibiotic-free" foods, but ironically also turns the light of public-health scrutiny on him as a purveyor of low-cost human antibiotics. You stand to lose both ways.

Shoppers change their minds about 'critical issues'

Antibiotic-free is another social issue trying to disguise itself as a wellness issue, and taking your credibility along for the ride. Bills just introduced into Congress — the fifth misguided federal attempt in a row now to impose this draconian legislation on farmers — relies on rhetoric routinely fed to the public and regulators by political activists. Their agenda reaches far beyond antibiotic use, advocating market over-regulation, animal rights and radical labor activism. The antibiotic prohibition is a stepping stone to those broader objectives, and it is not based in good science.

Caution! Your credibility is at risk

Animal welfare approved or humanely raised.

Advocates of small-scale, nonindustrial alternatives say their choice is more humane because it's more natural. The claim is dubious, and aptly demonstrates how little today's consumer understands about the traditional realities of farm life. Even "free range" chicken farmers, for instance, must cage those birds on pasture in order to protect them from the devastations of predators that can literally wipe out every bird in a flock overnight. Free-range pigs are routinely re-introduced to an old-fashioned practice that confinement barns rendered unnecessary: The "nose ring," which prevents them from tearing up pastures and fences by exhibiting the natural behavior of rooting--but only by making it painful for them to do so. Minus the use of chemical antiparasite products, animals on organic, free-range farms typically experience clinical cases of parasitism and are driven to literally run for their lives from hordes of biting flies that remain well-controlled in conventional operations. And one of the dirty secrets about organic animal production is that a suspected but unconfirmed number of animals often go unmedicated even though they are sick and suffering because the farmer would otherwise sacrifice his more lucrative organic premium by treating them with a modern medication. The truth is, animal production has always had a brutal and bloody side. To farmers, it's a part of nature that doesn't go away by labeling them "animal welfare approved."


All natural not as animal-welfare friendly as shoppers might think

Caution! Your credibility is at risk


"Sustainable" is the Miss America of food label claims: Like world peace, surely no one can be against it. But the questionable definition of sustainable puts grocers who freely buy into it into a precarious position. The reality that many don't perceive is that "sustainable" was co-opted years ago by a movement of "green capitalists" like John Elkington, who believed that those bent on "social justice" who couldn't beat the capitalist should instead join it. In doing so, they developed an "improved capitalism" that would deny the tenants of failed socialist policies in name but would support the spirit of them in practice. The resulting irony of a "sustainable" system that purports to help the world's poor only by charging high prices to wealthy Westerners is not lost on those like physician Henry I. Miller, a fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford and a founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology, who called today's infatuation with organic and sustainable food little more than "Affluent Narcissism." Clumsy, shorthand attempts to fool consumers into believing social justice can be added to a food like an ingredient threatens your credibility in two ways. First, it may appear to be empty “greenwashing”--self-serving marketing in the name of environmental protection that really protects only your bottom line. Second, it needlessly adds to the cost of food at precisely the moment when consumers are most sensitized to cost. It's another suspicion-rousing irony noted by Missouri farmer Blake Hurst, who noted, “In the many places around the world where organic farming is the norm, a large proportion of the population is involved in farming. Not because they choose to do so, but because they must." Promoting a "sustainable" vision of returning the world to the system of farming that the majority is laboring to escape threatens to present you as hypocritical.

The Food Morality Movement

Food has suddenly become the great moral cause of our era. Why?

  • Coming into the contentious November California ballot initiative that would have mandated many foods produced using biotechnology be labeled, The New Yorkers' long-time science, technology and public health reporter, Michael Specter, pronounced bioengineered foods convincingly safe, trustworthy and an efficient way to help feed the world. And yet, unacceptable. "Genetic engineering is only one particularly powerful way to do what we have been doing for eleven thousand years," he wrote. "[But] Here’s what the hysteria is really about: corporate control of seeds....If [citizens] have problems with the morality of an international conglomerate controlling the food we eat, then let’s elect people who want to make that more difficult," according to Specter.
  • To celebrate the 25th anniversary this month of the bestselling book, Diet for a New America, author Joh Robbins is re-releasing the anti-food-system litany, which the book's publisher hypes as startling examination of the food we currently buy and eat in the United States, and the astounding economic, emotional and moral price we pay for it.
  • Safeway announced this month it would require all its natural and cage-free egg lines be officially blessed by the Certified Humane® designation. Certified Humane, a brand mark of the non-profit Humane Farm Animal Care association, is not only marketed as the best method to ensure farmers meet their "moral and ethical obligation" to their animals, but according to some actually seems to mysteriously make the meat of those animals taste better.
  • Commenting upon a recent Journal of Pediatrics study showing obese children tend to be more influenced by advertising than non-obese kids, an assistant professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City told one of the local TV stations, "I think it raises the question, and it's a difficult question, of how ethical is it to advertise unhealthy food products to children, especially when we see that obese children are potentially more vulnerable...."

The Food Morality Movement

Every now and then, the increasingly vocal critics of the modern food system (of which the grocer plays a critical part) tip their hands and engage in a little accidental honesty. TIME magazine reporter and vocal critic of the modern food system Bryan Walsh did just that in his piece early last year "Foodies Can Eclipse (and Save) the Green Movement." In his essay, Walsh argues that the new food movement represents a potential rebirth for a flagging environmental movement that’s being shunned by the political establishment. “Even as traditional environmentalism struggles,” Walsh writes, “another movement is rising in its place, aligning consumers, producers, the media and even politicians. It's the food movement, and if it continues to grow it may be able to create just the sort of political and social transformation that environmentalists have failed to achieve in recent years. That would mean not only changing the way Americans eat…but also altering the way we work and relate to one another. To its most ardent adherents, the food movement isn't just about reform — it's about revolution.”

And what’s the common cause that underlies that new revolution? A link through to another Walsh TIME article from the December 2010 issue makes it clear: “Has Environmentalism Lost Its Spiritual Core?”

“Environmentalism,” Walsh writes, “began as a religion.” That’s how Sierra Club founder John Muir saw it a century and a half ago, when he called Yosemite "the grandest of all special temples of Nature." And that’s the way Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai views a sustainable food system, as Walsh also quotes her, “…when she points out that we can't forgo the natural connection that we feel for nature, even if we are becoming an urban animal. ‘A certain tree, forest or mountain itself may not be holy, [but] the life-sustaining services it provides — the oxygen we breathe, the water we drink — are what make existence possible…. The environment becomes sacred, because to destroy what is essential to life is to destroy life itself.’"

Today’s foodie-ism is but a new denomination in the church of environmentalism, according to Walsh. It’s “a religion that John Muir would recognize — and one we shouldn't surrender.”

Numerous churches are buying into not only the language of the new food morality movement, but the underlying philosophy, as well, according to Truth in Food author Kevin Murphy. Ironically, it masks a philosophy that often runs counter to the beliefs many traditional church-going Americans hold dear, Murphy wrote in “Christians and the New Food Movement” for the journal Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, which won the Catholic Press Association's 2012 award for Best Essay by a Scholarly Magazine.

“Food has become a moral metaphor,” Murphy says. “Food is a platform into all kinds of social issues, from global warming, sustainability, all the way to labor to treatment of animals to treatment of people. If you want to take a red cord and weave it through the stories, this is what it comes down to – it’s the ethics of food and food animal production.”

“Food today is going to be continually presented under the prism of food morality,” Murphy says. “So when you ask yourself about what you’re doing, you have to look at what you do through the prism of food morality.”

Agriculture and the food system as whole must reclaim the moral high ground, which opponents of modern food production and distribution are working tirelessly to undermine. Traditionally, ranchers and farmers have argued from the camp of reason and science while the system's opponents argue from emotion and ethics. In the new push to make food a moral issue, the race is now on between those two opposing camps to reach the high ground of moral defense. It all starts with asking the complexly simple question of what you do and why do it: "Is this practice right, or is it wrong?"

 Agree or disagree? Use the comment window below to weigh in.


S5 Box