James McWilliams, the author of Thursday’s New York Times Op-Ed (which questioned whether free-range pork better and safer to eat than conventional pork) discussed how he came across the study used as background for his article. The interview was published in yesterday’s U.S. Food Policy blog. Mr. McWilliams said he came across the study, which was sponsored by the National Pork Board, independently. Today’s New York Times placed an Editors’ Note at the end of the Op-Ed along with a note at the top calling attention to the correction.
“An Op-Ed article last Friday, about pork, neglected to disclose the source of the financing for a study finding that free-range pigs were more likely than confined pigs to test positive for exposure to certain pathogens. The study was financed by the National Pork Board.”