Talk:2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak/Archive 1

Salads
It appears also to be in German lettuces according to some sources.Wipsenade (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Upgraded
I have just added suff on Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Poland, Finland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Albania today.Wipsenade (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please add
Hi. Currently editing using extremely limited resources so I cant update the article itself. Could someone please add http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/1105_TER_Risk_assessment_EColi.pdf as a source which is the preliminary assessment by the relevant EU health authority. Thanks. 80.216.29.79 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the information provided by the european centre for disease prevention and control at http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/1105_TER_Risk_assessment_EColi.pdf, this outbreak is not attributed to O157:H7 but to O104:H4, a rarely reported strain in outbreaks 91.7.96.53 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would make sense to create a time line of events as these item seems to be more about the timing of events then the geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.134.123 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Any word on the source?
.. of the bacteria? as in Cow manure used for fertilizing the vegetables by spraying it mixed with water on the plants ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.130.98 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the usual assumption in the media, but nothing has been medically confirmed so far. —Angr (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in a Loubeck caff!86.24.12.123 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Outside Germany, where the outbreak is the worst"
Confusing wording. Is the outbreak worst in Germany or outside of Germany? --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worst in Germany. I changed it to "In addition to Germany, where the outbreak is worst" in hopes of making that clearer. —Angr (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is no outbreak outside (North-)Germany. All infected non-Germans were in Germany before. --one-eyed pirate 11:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

German Health officials or witch-hunters?
Spain was blamed without waiting for the results of the scientific test being carried out. It was made public without following the appropriate european health watchdog channels. Now it is mentioned that ecoli is present in spanish cucumbers, but not the same ecoli that is causing the deaths in Germany. I will search for the radio interview of a head spanish health officials who said all the above, before the results annonced today. In particular that ecoli was expected to be found. I understand ecoli is endemic, that you will find it everywhere just as you would expect to find flu viruses in winter. So saying that ecoli was found on spanish cucumbers is no news and I do not think that it meets encyclopedic criteria. Please be fair and encyclopedic. Spain is not the source of the outbreak. Germans at risk and have been lied to.79.156.228.167 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Wipsenade (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. German officials have tackled –and still go on!– the problem in the worst way possible. Just the opposite to my very respectful prejudices on German science, technique, and overall diplomacy. Scatterbrained Hamburg officials hurried (yes, Angr, they did) to name a scapegoat, regardless of the consequences. As the prestigious German newspaper Die Welt states, "Spaniens Gurken waren es nicht. Und nun?" ("Spanish cucumbers were not. What now?") Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On Tuesday 31 May, lab tests showed that two of the four cucumbers examined did contain toxin-producing E. coli strains, but not the O104 strain that was found in patients; this means that Spanish cucumbers are not the source of the outbreak and German authorities have to start all over again in their search for the source. The bacteria in the other two cucumbers have not yet been identified. No other possibilities have been officially proposed. Paul Hunter, professor of health protection at the University of East Anglia located in Norwich, United Kingdom, pointed out that salads are a regular cause of outbreaks of food borne diseases including STEC, like this one, and Salmonella.ref name="reuters-2011-06-01" / As of the first of June, the source is still unknown. name="reuters-2011-06-01". 82.27.23.67 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I dissent on the wording links being made between Spanish cucumbers and the deadly E. coli outbreak, with no proof, though. It gives a false impression of poor Spain being accused entirely innocently. Whereas the truth is much more like that the flash test on said cucumbers *did* show toxin producing EHEC, and they were hence assumed to be the likely cause. It later turned out that the bacteria were not of the same type as the ones in the outbreak -- fair enough, but this only means that incidentially those particular cucumbers did not cause those illness/death cases (they could as well have, however). It does not mean that they were harmless and that the warning was unjustified or premature. This is somewhat akin to two people shooting the same person with a gun one after another and then claimingthat the second one is necessarily not guilty of murder because the victim would have bled to death from the first shot anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.71.25 (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

definitely seemed like a witch-hunt. they found E.Coli on cucumbers? yeah, well, there's little places in nature you WON'T find E.Coli and german health officials should have known that (it's their job to know that kind of thing) and waited for more proof, before pointing fingers and declaring cucumbers the culprit. it seems their only proof was that 'all those people had recently been eating salads'. geez, so have i, on the first warm day of the year. and while it is standard procedure to cross-reference what patients have been eating (leading to the idea that it was 'in the salad') and where they have been, they missed the big indicator that ALL THOSE CASES ARE IN HAMBURG. that makes it likely the bacteria was not imported in food, but comes from within hamburg itself. the drinking water perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.66 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't match a water supply issue, those are either clustered in a broken pipe area or so widely disperse that the water supply is fairly obvious, due to MUCH higher numbers. The organism is infectious at approximately 500 bacteria, so the contamination need not be severe. Hence, it COULD EASILY be at a food distribution plant or even a train car or truck carrying the produce that wasn't cleaned after carrying livestock. The SEROTYPE is known to been found in ONE human in South Korea, but its genetics are novel. I've only assisted in tracing two FBI (Food Borne Infections) epidemics of rather limited numbers, but HAVE read of over a dozen incidents over the years. More than anything, though lacking concise data, it's "feeling" like a distribution/transportation contamination issue. For it to be more local, such as a supermarket chain would cause significant clustering in the area around the markets. For a transportation/distribution contamination, the only real significant cluster would be the city, as the transportation/distribution system services multiple vendors for the city. This is a problem that is going to consume a great deal of shoe leather before it's isolated, IF the contamination source can be isolated (it might've already been cleaned). But, one thing is certain: This will become a teaching case study. Both for what SHOULD NOT have been done (reporting Spanish cucumbers as a source without valid FACTS AND STUDIES to back it up) AND for the difficulties involved in tracing this type of epidemic. At the end of the day, it'll be the shoe leather burners and the statisticians who resolve the contamination source, if the source can be isolated, after this much time has passed since the index case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.16.223 (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Albania
Albania had banned cucumber imports on May 30, although health minister Petrit Vasili explained that Albanians are in no danger as all cucumbers were produced locally anyway, not imported.Albania bans cucumber imports / top-channel.tv82.27.23.67 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Proof and blame
In the article it's been said a couple of times that Germany announced that Spanish cucumbers to blame without any proof. This is factually true, but is not exactly what references say (they do say that Spain said Germany made the accusation without proof).The point is that to say baldly "without proof" is misleading, weasel words. If it were a straight accusation about Spanish cucumbers, "without proof" would be fair comment (and would have been made by the press). After things stabilise it may be that there has been carelessness, but this would have to be proved. But look at it from a public health standpoint: there is a fatal outbreak. It is identified as E. coli (strain unknown) initially. You test what you can; several cucumbers come back from the lab with a diagnostic of "E. coli found". What do you do? If you wait ~3 days for definitive proof and the cucumbers were the cause, you will definitely get headlines "government did nothing for 3 days - hundreds of extra dead - coverup!". The best you can do from a public health standpoint is say what you think, but warn that it is not definitive - which is what the reference said. News media are being careful not to do too much finger-pointing; Wikipedia can only follow, not lead by making accusations. Pol098 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's Google it up.Wipsenade (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I not say "ANY". I say: "without proof of where (Spain) and which (O104:H4) Escherichia coli had been found". To do a NPOV we not need to write "exactly" the reference. Wikipedia is not a newspaper: On May 26 germans say, without proof, that "Escherichia coli enterohaemorrhagic is in organic cucumbers from Spain". This is the enciclopedic information to understand the consequences. Blame or not.
 * And please:I not answer you about "What do you do?": "After things stabilise it may be that there has been such a fault. But look at it from a public health standpoint: there is a fatal outbreak. It is identified as E. coli (strain unknown) initially. You test what you can; several cucumbers come back from the lab with a diagnostic of "E. coli found". What do you do? If you wait ~3 days for definitive proof and the cucumbers were the cause, you will definitely get headlines "government did nothing for 3 days - hundreds of extra dead - coverup!". The best you can do from a public health standpoint is say what you think, but warn that it is not definitive" etc. I will revert your non enciclopedic edition. --Looc20 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that to write "without proof of where (Spain) and which (O104:H4) Escherichia coli had been found", which is not closely derived from a reference, is not appropriate. It was fairly clearly an opinion of the likely cause, but not definitive, and was reported as such; in the event it turned out to be wrong. "which (O104:H4) Escherichia coli had been found" is probably particularly inappropriate unless it's documented that the O104:H4 strain was known to have caused illness. At this stage it's appropriate to stop arguing and see what others think, if anybody actually cares. Anybody interested, have a look at the differences and say what you think. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Without proof" is a fact, it is not an opinion. What is an opinion is delete it because you say that it is a blame. The opinion of the Germans officials is that their announced was a correct action, proof or not.--Looc20 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any opinions? Pol098 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * is worst than I think, German authorities announced the alarm without results of tests. Read here: "The information -of positive test- provided by the German authorities was corrected on Monday 30 May by the same authorities indicating that results were still pending on O104 confirmation".--Looc20 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh?86.26.75.229 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with Pol098. How about this? --86.80.31.101 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Bean-sprouts" !?
There are two references to "bean-sprouts" in the article:


 * Beansprout -> Mung bean
 * Bean sprouts -> Sprouting

Could someone determine the correct link, and why the selection of either is correct one ..? Electron9 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source says "mung bean sprouts, radish sprouts, pea sprouts and lentil seeds" were all grown at the farm. Speciate (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Salty water - Brine soaking
I saw this section being removed: "Professor of microbiology Mark Wilcox of the University of Leeds says that prolonged soaking is more effective than rinsing, adding "when I was a kid, my gran would always soak the salad in salty water as it is somewhat antibacterial." "

Asafik, salty water (Brine) kills bacteria. If it kills enough to rid of E. Coli is another story. But I find no claim currently for either. Electron9 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This "advice" may well kill people. Soaking is what they do to make bean sprouts, and it cannot be made safe. Water promotes bacterial growth. If one puts enough salt, bleach or hydrogen peroxide to kill all bacteria, it will damage the food itself, and once the food it removed from the solution, it will be more vulnerable to contamination. In any case, the opinion of one "scientist", which he bases on a childhood anecdote cannot be in this article on the grounds of WP:UNDUE. Speciate (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this section shouldn't have been removed. It adds the recommendation of an expert (Mark Wilcox, professor of medical microbiology at the University of Leeds) on how to reduce the risk of infection in as simple way. In case, it could also be complemented by Stephen Vaughan's recommendation of ::soaking the vegetables in Milton Sterilizing Fluid for 20 minutes.
 * As for Wilcox recommendation, he said: "The more you wash and soak, the greater the effect," to go on to give an example of his grandmother did: "When I was a kid, my gran would always soak the salad in salty water as it is somewhat antibacterial." but he's availing his recommendation with his own professional ::experience. If he had said that her grandmother washed her hands before handling the food, did than example invalidate such recommendation as well?
 * As to water promoting bacterial growth, first of all, water will promote bacterial dilution into water, so you'll be ingesting fewer bacteria as long as you don't drink that soaking water.
 * Finally, the advise of washing vegetables with water with water isn't exclusively Wilcox' recommendation: "the FSA is advising people to wash vegetables that cannot be peeled or cooked." RamonSunyer (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Something that might be of interest is how much salt content is required to kill E.Coli in sufficient amount ..? Electron9 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Cite check
I have added the cite check tag because I found at least two cites that were not properly summarised in the article. I suspect the rush of editing has resulted in these text-cite mismatches, and that there may be more. I only looked at cites numbered 7,8,9,10,11 and 22. Furthermore the FT cite is behind some kind of paywall, and this europa link returns an error page. -84user (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the FT newspaper cite had pay-wall subscription thing to! 82.11.107.84 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Title
Should this be called the 2011 E. coli outbreak? For instance, the 1993 outbreak at Jack in the box also caused H-U-S, but it's commonly referred to as an E. coli outbreak, usually in the context of needing better food safety (such as in the book Fast Food Nation). People know what E. coli is. I'm just thinking that people would recognize the word E. coli more than "hemolytic-uremic syndrome". hbdragon88 (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Try the 2011 Escherichia coli O104:H4 outbreak?Wipsenade (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved. Additionally, this may not be a hemolytic disease, according to a person on the Escherichia coli O104:H4 talk page. Speciate (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with 2011 E. coli outbreak? Are there other E coli outbreaks that we have to disambiguate from? Surely "E. coli" is the common name, and not "Escherichia coli". 137.82.175.12 (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * E. coli is present everywhere. Trillions of them are inside you right now. The O104:H4 strain is what is causing disease. By consensus, medical articles on Wikipedia are exempted from WP:COMMONNAME. That said, I don't much care if the article is called 2011 Escherichia coli O104:H4 outbreak or 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak. Speciate (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just moved the page without reading the talk page, because I am a dunce. I have reread WP:MEDMOS though, and I see nothing that would prevent us from having 2011 E. coli outbreak as the article title. And although this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, we do have 2008 United States salmonellosis outbreak, which has stayed stable at that title for three years now. NW ( Talk ) 20:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I support 2011 E. coli outbreak due to it being the most commonly used name (it has nearly 7 million results in Google compared with "2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak", which has 3370). It is also much more easier to read as a short, simple title which conveys the meaning perfectly (especially as there is a date). EryZ (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Try 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak or 2011 European E. coli  O104:H4 outbreak ?Wipsenade (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New title?


So it's been reported now that this is a new super-toxic strain of E. coli. Wondering if we should go for the generic 2011 E. coli outbreak title. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because E. coli are not undergoing any kind of outbreak, E. coli O104:H4 are. E. coli are everywhere, they are part of the natural gut biota of mammals. Because such reports, by news media interested in selling advertising, run afoul of consensus at Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Because a lab in China does a rapid preliminary sequencing, and for publicity's sake made an announcement, does not mean that this is not O104:H4. Reading the press release, they say it is O104, but make no statement regarding the H-antigen. The strain is not new, it has been known to be enteroaggregative since at least 2001; Speciate (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I somehow missed the enteroaggregative mention from 2001, the only human pathogen notation I found was from a Korean woman in 2005. That said, the antigens match, but the genetics, as released yesterday, do not match, but show a new strain, secondary to horizontal transfer of genetic materiel. The press loves to run away with the new "Superbug" of the week, it sells their news product, at the cost of valid facts that can be confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.16.223 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hum?82.14.57.233 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a Newspaper?
I regret that this article does not apply to Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Why can't all the authors add their contributions to WikiNews? --94.103.200.245 (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is. Please have a look at the template on top of this article, stating that "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses", and then go to this link: Portal:Current events. You're welcome. Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But not to reverse enciclopedic information to daily information.--Looc20 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So let's kick Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper into the trashcan, or what? --22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.103.200.245 (talk)

EXCELLENT work on the matrix/color codes! It made the map instantly understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.16.223 (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

C.P. Grogan?82.14.57.233 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A restaurant in Lübeck, Germany.
On June 4, German and EU officials had allegedly been examining data that indicated that restaurant in Lübeck, Germany, as a possible starting point of the on-going deadly E coli outbreak in Europe. [][]Wipsenade (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had got the impression it was a catered event in Lübeck that was suggested as the point of origin. Speciate (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact its possiboly on part of a farm in Ulzen, near Hamburg.86.24.10.255 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not!82.14.57.233 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Spreading?
I hear there's a case of this in Canada now Pyromania153 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm Googling ut up for you. :-)Wipsenade (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's type 'Escherichia coli O157:H7' not 'O104:H4'.Wipsenade (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Map
That's something you won't pin on Greece that easily, by looking at the map. --212.54.216.56 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, long live Greece! .Wipsenade (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading map
The map, which highlights Germany and all other EU countries is misleading. In fact, as the article states correctly, only 10 European countries plus USA are affected. I suggest to use a world map that highlights only those countries that have reported cases.--spitzl (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have alredy started one.Wipsenade (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent. May I suggest to distinguish between "local cases" and "imported cases"? Given the infection does not spread from person to person, it seems reasonable to distinguish between countries that have reported local cases (Germany) and countries that have only imported infections through travelers that have been in Germany recently (Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, UK, USA). In the case of Denmark, Switzerland and Poland it is imho unclear, whether they also have local infections.--spitzl (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that some time tomorrow. :-). Wipsenade (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

DoneWipsenade (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That was quick, thanx. Can I give you a last suggestion? Instead of brown color, use a medium dark grey to indicate countries with no cases but "Food sale/trade restrictions/ran tests". Running a test is not a sever measure. Therefore it shouldn't have such a strong color.--spitzl (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was partly done anyway, so it was quick. Another user was browned off by the brown and scrapped it. A new globalised map will occur soon, now that the UAE and Nigeria are involved. 16:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. Two more things I noticed. 1) Emotionally the dark gray color is still too obtrusive, given that these countries did not register a single case but merely did some tests or introduced restrictions. 2) The data refers to countries but the map shows regions too. So the map seems to tell us that there have been cases in each region, which is not the case. A solution would be to either get rid of the regional borders or to color only those regions where cases have been found. Cheers, --spitzl (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about the region thing to, but not the grey.Wipsenade (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A colour code change is imminent.Wipsenade (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the map is more difficult to grasp after the latest change. The new brown tones now compete with the orange tones that indicate native cases. Visually you can't tell the difference between these very different labels. Replacing the original dark gray with a lighter gray would have done the job.--spitzl (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Like the new 'poofy tint' mauve and lilac tints?Wipsenade (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Map accuracy
It is labeled with spanish cucumbers, it might not be accurate for current info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.37.129 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not called that any more!86.24.12.123 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Map box
could anybody please fix the mapbox or move it to a seperate section becouse it gets capped off becouse theres too mutch info in it. thanks Hybirdd (talk· contribs· count· email) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I swiched it's place with the bacteria's data box.Wipsenade (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up that the map box is again being cut off Hybirdd (talk· contribs· count· email) 16:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

European Comission support
Dacian Ciolos has decided to support the foreign farmers with 210 million euros. I agree with the support to Spanish farmers, but with what arguments the supporter is European Comission and not the contributer: Germany? Watti Renew (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The UK (until it's economic collapse in 2008), Austria, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands also help pay the EU's bills and get little back!Wipsenade (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia mainpage "In The News" again?
I've nominated this story for re-inclusion in the "In the news" section on the main page; see here under June 10 (and have your say - i.e., Oppose or Support, explaining your reasons).

I wrote the following blurp:
 * The E. coli outbreak in Northern Germany that has sickened over 3000 and killed over 30, mostly in Germany, is attributed by German authorities to raw sprouts produced at a farm in near Hamburg

and the following nominator's comment:
 * We covered the break-out In The News; we should wrap it up too. It does not seem too likely that more conclusive evidence will appear, so I think this is the right time

--Nø (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
Which of the above discussions prompted the neutrality tag on the article? Could the title of the discussion be enhanced to indicate it is the Neutrality discussion??? --- This section can then be deleted. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Let's give it until tomorrow and remove it if no reply by then.-- Asterion talk 08:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed it now. There is no problem with POV in the article. Speciate (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not suspected, it is erroneous. The information of positive test (without results of ongoing tests) provided by the German authorities was corrected later.--Looc20 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Doggerel. 82.2.66.62 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"NPOV"
I'm not going to get into semantics about what constitutes NPOV, but comparing these two versions of the opening header: one and two, I would say that there is no detriment to NPOV in the second one, which is the version I believe to be just better written. One: "German officials gave erroneous information of the origin and strain of Escherichia coli. German health authorities, without results of ongoing tests, initially linked serotype O104 to cucumbers imported from Spain. They later recognised that Spanish greenhouses were not the source of E. coli and cucumber samples did not show the specific E. coli variant seen in the outbreak. Spain consequently expressed anger about having its produce linked with the deadly E. coli outbreak, which cost Spanish exporters 200m USD per week. Russia has banned the import of all fresh vegetables from the European Union." Two: "German health authorities, pending results of ongoing tests, initially suspected cucumbers imported from Spain had been the source of the outbreak of E. coli. They later recognised that Spanish greenhouses were not the source of E. coli and cucumber samples did not show the specific E. coli variant seen in the outbreak. Spain consequently expressed anger about having its produce linked with the deadly E. coli outbreak, which cost Spanish exporters 200m USD per week. Russia has banned the import of all fresh vegetables from the European Union." For one thing, in the first version above, the same thing is said twice in different ways, which is just redundant. In the second version, the syntax is clearer. In fact, I would say that the second version is more "NPOV" in that it avoids the emotional baggage of the language in the first version. Thoughts? Gammondog (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No emotional baggage. "Suspected" is not equal to "Erroneous". The information of positive test (without results of ongoing tests) provided by the German authorities was corrected later. You can see here . Fell free to improve sintaxis,semantics,etc but not remove NPOV. --Looc20 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Looc20, what exactly do you mean? How exactly does NPOV require us to attribute blame? --86.80.31.101 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * what blame? I talk about a erroneous information (serotype 0104 confirmed! not suspected). See references not delete it.--Looc20 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear from what's written later that they were wrong. No need to say it twice.  I disapprove of being referred to as a vandal (cf., here), btw. --86.80.31.101 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete references please.Im sorry but is the second.--Looc20 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is English your first language? From the way you're writing here it would appear not to be - that's not a criticism butin that case then you wouldn't be able to see just how much more emotionally charged the version you insist is "more NPOV" actually is. As for the difference between "erroneous" and "suspected", the way you argue it makes it seem as if the Germans released wrong information on purpose, which is clearly not the case. Gammondog (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No I can not see how emotionally is "erroneous". But you can see how erroneous is "suspected" here , German authorities information on May 27: "Suspicion" is equal to  "Suspected". But it is not equal to the information of serotype 0104 Confirmed (without results of ongoing tests) provided by the German authorities, that was corrected later, on May 31. With English as my first language or not.--Looc20 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC) -- Hi guys, I would rather not getting drawn into a third-party content dispute but here is my proposal to both of you. It may be wise if you ask for more opinions (ie RfC, etc). Thanks, -- Asterion talk 02:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) Organic cucumbers from Malaga distributed to DE and DK, serotype 0104 confirmed
 * (b) Non-organic cucumber from Almeria distributed to DE, serotype 0104 confirmed
 * (c) Cucumber from NL or DK (distributor not sure): suspicion, result serotyping expected on Monday

Three: "German health authorities, pending conclusive test results, incorrectly stated at first that cucumbers imported from Spain had been the source of the E. coli outbreak. They later admitted that Spanish greenhouses were not the source of E. coli and that none of the cucumber samples had indeed shown the specific E. coli variant seen in the outbreak. Spain consequently expressed anger about having its produce linked with the deadly E. coli outbreak, which cost Spanish exporters 200m USD per week. Russia has banned the import of all fresh vegetables from the European Union."
 * agree.--Looc20 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeh, agreed.86.24.10.255 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No one seems to have answered the important question. We know that the cucumbers were not the source of the outbreak and did not have the specific strain that cause the outbreak. So far all that has been shown was the German authorities initially confirmed the Spanish cucumbers as having E. coli serotype 0104. Was this later proven incorrect? They could obviously be serotype 0104 while being a different strain e.g. 0104:H21. Also the quote above doesn't say anything about the German authorities initally confirmed the Spanish cucumbers as the source of the outbreak. All it shows is they confirmed the Spanish cucumbers as having serotype 0104 which may or may not be incorrect but isn't the same thing. Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking more closely the document actually says "Source of infection" which shows they did initially claim the cucumbers were the source and "The information provided by the German authorities was corrected on Monday 30 May by the same authorities indicating that results were still pending on O104 confirmation of both batches" which shows the confirmation of the cucumbers as having O104 was incorrect (although it's still not clear whether or not they did have O104). These are the more important points which were missed in the above quote. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Precautions
I move that the whole section Precautions be deleted for the following reasons: --Lambiam 13:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * whatever is described is general advice in avoiding bacterial food poisoning, since whoever is offering the advice, experts and laypeople alike, did so without actually knowing any specifics about the outbreak (like what kind of food got contaminated in what way), and so it is obviously not specific to the topic of this article;
 * the section is subject to a slow and lame edit war;
 * Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on avoiding food poisoning.
 * I came to the talk page to make a similar suggestion. Particularly the information about copper disinfection seems (near-)original research. The section on international responses should already cover the official recommendations issued by several governmental organizations. GoEThe (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's stultifyingly boareing!86.24.10.255 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the worst of the OR. Speciate (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

******Aviva!82.2.66.62 (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse this suggestion: the section is unencyclopedic: this article exists to describe the event, not to offer advice on how to avoid falling victim to it. Wikipedia is not a public health agency. More broadly, as Lambiam has already noted, Wikipedia is not a how-to. As there appears to be a consensus, I'll remove the section. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup
For those of us who are regularly editing this article, please list any concerns with the state of the article so that as we make edits we can make small fixes/improvements at the same time.
 * E. coli and other scientific names such as Salmonella should be italicised.
 * I have gotten most of the unitalicised ones in the first half of the article, but many remain lower down.


 * Article length. The article is too long. Please do not add, and remove if you spot them, useless tidbits of information.
 * For example, there was an EU meeting in Luxembourg which took care to say, "the grand duchy of Luxembourg", as if that was important to this article.


 * Too many refs. Please check if the ref is already in use in the article, and reuse it by employing the "ref name =" syntax. Also, consider finding a source which attempts to give an overview of the outbreak, and use that source in place of many of the earlier breaking news sources.
 * Use of the word "confirm". This word should only be used when a case, outbreak or source of contamination has been medically confirmed to be true.
 * Excessive quoting. Please paraphrase all the quotes in this article. Use of direct quotes is lazy.
 * For example, I just removed this useless entry from the EU member nations section: UK The University of Liverpool's School of Veterinary Science, Paul Wigley, told the Reuters news agency in an interview on the 7th that "Bean sprouts are not an uncommon cause of food poisoning," and that "Both E. coli and Salmonella outbreaks have been linked to sprouts in the United States and in Britain,". This is utter crap. First off, Paul Wigley, whoever the fuck he is, is not a nation. Secondly, this information is not confined to the UK, it is true everywhere.


 * Naming non-notable people. As with the above example, naming random spokepeople or college professors that some reporter happened to interview is journalism. This is an encyclopedia article, and needs to use Summary Style. Joe Bloggs, when reading this article, does not need to know the names of these people. Also, when indivdiduals are quoted, this lends WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to their opinions. Please stick to pronouncements from government agencies or, if criticizing government agencies, highly reputable, well-researched journalist sources--the kind of investigative reports that "blow the lid off" government malfeasance.
 * Please add your pet peaves to this list beneath mine, thanks, Speciate (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for this highly implausible claim of a mere hundred bacteria of this strain causing disease, no support for it in the supposed citation to Der Spiegel, no human experiments have ever been conducted or ever will be conducted with this strain. The objectional passage is: "can cause illness even in low doses (100 E. coli O104:H4 bacteria ) 67.171.240.127 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I have removed that paragraph. Neither source mentions the number of E. coli bacteria it would take to infect a human, and since they weigh 665 femtograms each, a billion of them weigh 0.000665 grams. So this tiny amount is enough to infect. Speciate (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor hygiene standards in Germany to blame reports Deutsche Welle
According to this poor hygiene standards in Germany likely contributed to the spread of the problem in Germany only 40% of German adults wash their hands more than once per day which is recommended during fight against spread E.coli --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article merely notes that frequency and duration of handwashing in Germany are below what is commonly recommended to reduce the spread of pathogens. It doesn't attribute any role in the outbreak to poor hygiene standards. I'm removing the passage as irrelevant. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your removal. This was an extremely nasty addition by a well-known anti-German POV-pusher, who once again crossed the border from his usual hate-mongering, to try to portray Germans as vile dirty creatures, quite in the manner the Nazis would smear Jews, e.g. in this lousy piece. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check
Just for my own clarification, I am going to write down what I think real story is.
 * A farm in northern Germany producing a wide variety of vegetable sprouts becomes contaminated with E. coli O104:H4. Commercial sprouting involves keeping nutrient-rich seeds gotten from the dirty, dirty ground, and germinating them in sopping wet, warm conditions in the dark--conditions ideal for bacterial growth and reproduction. In spite of the extuhuhreeemely well-known danger from adulteration of sprouts with deadly bacteria, regular microbial testing, as is probably required by law in Germany (it is in the US) and which costs about €40 per test, was not done, or the testing failed to show any problems. Employees on the farm have diarrhea, but continued working until the farm was raided by authorities and shut down.
 * Beginning on Second of May, health authorities in Germany notice an uptick in cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome. This was reported by the US CDC in this source: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/outbreak-notice/2011-germany-europe-e-coli.htm
 * On May 26th, 24 days later, German authorities, going outside of the proscribed methods and channels of tracking down disease and informing the public, announce that Spanish cucumbers are the source of an outbreak. This is in spite of the facts that cucumbers are unlikely reservoirs of dirt and bacteria, Spanish cucumbers are eaten all over Europe, and the outbreak is confined to a small area in Germany. Oh, and if it is in salads it's always fucking sprouts.
 * A giant clusterfuck ensues, with billions of Euros of economic losses. Blame and recrimination abound.
 * Meanwhile, nobody at the spout farm has a thought that maybe they should have some additional testing done. See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points for the international standard on food safety and why this thought should have occurred to them.
 * Somebody finally figures out that it's sprouts, and which sprout farm it's coming from. The place is raided, and workers are found squirting diarrhea like fountains.
 * Nobody is fired. Nobody is fined or indicted. No investigation of those health authorities who blamed cucumbers is planned. No investigation of those health authorities who couldn't figure out it was sprouts is planned.
 * The German government, which is telling the other countries in the EU that they need austerity, are balking at paying 100% to make up for the economic losses that are 100% their fault.
 * Have I gotten the story right? Speciate (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most people hit by the 2008 United States salmonellosis outbreak are thought to have got it through eating salads, and as far as is known no sprouts were involved. The 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak at Taco Bell restaurants on the U.S. East Coast is thought to have come from lettuce. So always is a bit too strong.
 * According to a press release from the farm, they did additional testing after it became clear there was an outbreak, but the results were negative. Possibly, by that time the infected batches had already left the farm, and in the meantime the vats involved had been cleaned and perhaps even sterilized. But, clearly, not every batch was tested. It was made known a worker at the farm suffered from diarrhea involving this E. coli strain, but I can't place this on the timeline. Was the worker infected by the already contaminated produce, or can (s)he – given the timing – have been the source of the contamination? --Lambiam 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speciate, do not have a go at fellow editors. Probably not your intention but this is how it sounds like. As for it being crystal clear, I do agree about German authorities behaviour being irresponsible but the source was never that clear. In fact, the only known case of the specific serotype and strain was in Korea and it likely related to beef. In this sense, the Russian ban of Brazilian ban was linked to Rosselkhoznadzor Instruction No. FS-NV-2/9959 dd. 14.09.2009 because of "opportunistic pathogens" (E. coli, S. aureus, Proteus bacteria, B. cereus and sulfite-reducing clostridia, Vibrio parahaemolyticus) and it happened at the same that Gennady Onishchenko went on record to say that "it was obvious that Spanish cucumbers could not have been the true cause of the problem". Regards, -- Asterion talk 10:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Workers are found squirting diarrhea like fountains." I think that at the very least that merits an   tag. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What type of beans sprouts?
There are lots of beans that sprout, but does anyone know what type of beans sprouts are contaminated? Autorodents, transform and squeak out! (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know ethither, mate.213.81.123.131 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

On June 9, the Dutch authorities recalled red beet sprouts that originated in the Netherlands, Germany and Spain were found to be contaminated with a different (and less toxic) strain of E. coli bacteria. [].Wipsenade (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The farm originally cited produced many kinds of sprouts, including various beans and other vegetables. The classic sprouts one gets in Chinese-American cuisine are mung bean, and I think the very thin sprouts often found on salads and sandwiches are lettuce or broccoli. In any case, nobody on this planet should ever eat raw sprouts. Our ancestors did not evolve eating sprouted food. Speciate (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well for many of us the vast majority of our ancestors (prior to the European colonisation of the Americas, genetic transfer from the Americas to Eurasia appears to have been minimal and while it's obviously increased since then the transfer appears to have gone more in the other way so it's likely many people still have very few ancestors who were from the Americas) until the late 15th century didn't evolve eating chillies, turkeys, maize or sweet potatoes or a number of other things either. While I haven't found any clear RS many sources do suggest the history of mung bean sprout consumption in China and India goes back at least a thousand if not more years. Some sources suggest in 2939 B.C. the emperor of China recorded the use of “health-giving sprouts” but I haven't been able to find a clear RS. However I don't see any reason to doubt human use of sprouts goes back at least a thousand or more years. (Raw or not I don't know, it's not really part of my point, I've never been a fan of raw mung bean sprouts anyway and mung bean sprouts in a lot of South Asian, SEA or East Asian cuisine tends to be at least partially cooked.) Of course either way, talking about what our ancestors did or did not evolve eating tends to be a bad way to give health advice. Far better to actually determine whether something is a health risk and if it is why. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chinese writers regularly backdate innovations to the Yellow Emperor. When I speak of evolutionary experience, I mean on the order of 100,000 years, that is, since we cooked with fire. 2,000 to 4,000 years is only 90 to 210 generations. For natural selection to take place, a substantial fraction of the human race would have to be exposed to raw sprouts for many generations. Since the Chinese cook their sprouts, no such exposure has ever taken place. Raw sprouts have only been used for a few decades. Speciate (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on what the infected and healthy people of the farm ate, health officials narrowed it down to garlic, broccoli or fenugreek.--walkeetalkee 11:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference to E. coli strain being engineered
There are now references to the possibility of this outbreak being man-made in multiple third party sources e.g., ,. I recognise that this is likely to be highly controversial and therefore wanted to discuss the issue here rather than simply add a mention to the article, but in my view some mention of these reports should be made in this article. I am personally neutral as to which section the reference goes into. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources written by people who don't understand evolution. Livestock are given antibiotics, and so it is inevitable that resistant strains will florish. Speciate (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How are these sources unreliable? So far as I can see they all more than satisfy WP requirements.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they are crazy Russkies advancing a moronic position. Every time I see a news story by RT or Pravda I wonder what they have been smoking, especially when they stray outside of politics. Speciate (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion and of course you're welcome to it but I don't see how it fits in with WP policy. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Title change without discussion
An anonymous editor changed the display title in this edit without explanation. I found no prior discussion about this in the talk archives. Another editor subsequently moved the article to a name matching the display title, again without discussion.

Is there a consensus for the title 2011 German E. coli O104:H4 outbreak ? I feel that title is clunky and the inclusion of "German" is unnecessary. Seeing as the change and move was without discussion I propose reverting back to the original name. I would prefer if in future such moves were done following the expected wikipedia processes. -84user (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"German" in the title is incorrect and misleading as the strain has also caused an outbreak in France and will probably turn up in other countries. Skmacksler (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

French outbreak and Swedish case
There's a report about ~10 persons getting infected with 0104:H4 in France. And 1 person getting HUS? by infection in Sweden. Could someone dig into this? esp when, where, strain, effects.Electron9 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the Swedish case, in the cited press release=source 1 (in Swedish) they do not mention HUS in relation (personally I think they would if it was confirmed or even suspected), I haven't seen any such reports. The individual is recovering 1 . Was suffering from bloody diarrhea 1 from mid June 1.                                                                                                         :Was infected about two weeks earlier (incubation time). No known travel to Germany by him or people he met 1. Has not left Scania during that time.                                                                                                               :No known links to other infected people 1. --Alcea setosa (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strain:"An ehec case of the same specific type as in the outbreak in Germany has been identified in Sweden"                            :my translation from "Ett ehec-fall av samma specifika typ som utbrottet i Tyskland har identifierats i Sverige." 1. --Alcea setosa (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 German E. coli O104:H4 outbreak → 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak – My rationale is simply to return the name to what it was, and to undo a change made with no discussion. Editors can of course suggest other names for this article. 84user (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I smiled when I saw the move. It seems to me that the Germans caused this outbreak through bad practices and stupidity, and are still unwilling to pay for the damage. Making a move without discussion is part of the WP:BRD credo. Speciate (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "German" is incorrect--this strain has also caused an outbreak in France and it will probably turn up in other countries. If the source is Egyptian fenugreek seeds as tentatively reported then there is nothing particularly German about it. Germans just got it first. Just stick with the technical name without political baggage. Skmacksler (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source of the outbreak was not the seeds or the strain. The source was the failure of the German food safety system, which allowed a sprout farm to operate without proper controls. The scientists behind public health are fully aware of how dangerous sprouts are. Speciate (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the responsible authorities your claim about the farm is totally wrong. They stressed that the farm appeared to be operating to a very high standard, and that there was no indication that they are to blame. Hans Adler 22:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for the disparaging statement that the farm in question operated without proper controls? --Lambiam 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sprouts dangerous?, how about mad cows?, mrsa? campylobacteria in meat?, pesticides?, additives? get a perspective. And tracing contagious diseases is hard. There's also the choice between acting on what you know at present or wait until you are absolutely sure. And at the same time being assured many people dies in the process. Electron9 (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Science is hard all over, but the German public health system is the one that made everything worse by pointing blame on cucumbers from the dirty Spaniards while failing to discover the real source for months. Billions of Euros in economic losses piled on top of the loss of life. You should be ashamed to be supporting these incompetent government officials. In any case, the outbreak is German, and User:84user's claim that an outbreak in France is caused by the same strain means that there could be an 2011 French E. coli O104:H4 outbreak article any day now. So having this title is completely appropriate. Speciate (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to have an agenda, but please do not use Wikipedia as your soapbox – and also do not attack other editors who may not share your point of view. --Lambiam 16:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.