“The Food and Drug Administration will conduct fewer food safety inspections this year because of the government sequester. The loss of $209 million from its budget will force the agency to conduct about 2,100 fewer inspections.” – Liz Szabo (USA Today)
While we would think government agencies has it in their best interest to protect us, consumers, humans and animals in what we eat; it is evident that this is not the case. Although agencies such as the FDA have a set of jurisdictions, they do exercise their authority in situations that matter the most. A huge flaw within the system starts Congress and their continued lack of enthusiasm when it comes to inspecting our foods.
This is a topic that concerns all consumers in the United States. We often overlook such issues because we place our trust in the government and believe that they serve in our best interest because after all we were the ones who elected them, right? This article will take you behind the scenes of the food industry and the United States’ government oversight on the topic of food safety.
According to Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at NYU, prior to the late 1800’s, the U.S government took no responsibility for food safety. They were forced to do so by public demands that sparked from journalists frequent visits to slaughterhouses who shared their experiences. This outraged caused Congress to pass a Meat Inspection Act in 1890 that authorized inspection of salt pork, bacon, and pigs intended for export.
A drastic blow to the food industry and the government came in 1906 when Upton Sinclair published his expose in the meat industry, specifically the Chicago stockyards. 
Following the confirmation of these allegations proposed by Sinclair, Congress immediately passed two separate pieces of legislation: the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, both in 1906. Interesting how secret investigations have to be done and publicized to force our government to want to get its act together isn’t it? This is only the start of the problem.
The Food and Drug Administration formed in 1906, the same year Sinclair released his expose, is a federal agency responsible for protecting public health by assuring safety and security of human and animal drugs, biological products, medical services, OUR NATION’S FOOD SUPPLY (this includes food additives), cosmetics and products that admit radiation. I can’t help but question whether the founding of the FDA was an act of concern for citizens of the United States or a play to distract citizens from the actual problems that lie within the government.
Consumer Reports article, “You are what they eat,” does not hold back and immediately claims that the “federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply.” I agree 100%. The main concern of the United States government is the military, more the half of the country’s budget is dedicated to military spending. They even assert that some regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection. The article informed us that the FDA delegated much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70% of feed-company and renderer inspections. This means that the FDA hands over its responsibility to assure not only our safety but animal safety over to state legislatures.
We might think since state legislatures are local when compared to Congress, they would go the extra mile to protect the people, wrong. Many elected government officials are endorsed by these same dictators within the food industry and sadly, local state legislatures are just as correct as the government. Money is a major deciding factor in all business, executive, and even political decisions. While 70 to 90% of cattle and chicken feed is plant based: corn and soybean meal, the remaining 10 to 30% remains questionable. Processed feathers and poultry litter are acceptable sources of protein in cattle feed according to the FDA (yuck). Farmed fish may be given rendered meat, bone and feather meal. The ultimate goal is to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible. 
Also included in feed are medications given routinely to animals even the healthy ones in order to boost growth and minimize infections.
Nestle also takes a stance on medications, specifically antibiotics. Antibiotics are chemicals that prevent bacteria from reproducing, when added to animal food or water they tend to grow faster and need less feed. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria survives and multiplies causing potential health problems for our animals. The FDA did not always lack in their field, in 1977, they proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed but were overruled by Congress under pressure received from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and makers of the drug. How much power does Congress hold if they are being manipulated into allowing potential harm into human bodies? One might think the solution to antibiotics is to go organic, but what does it really mean for foods to be “organic”?
In his piece, “Organic Illusions,” Blake Hurst, Missouri Farm Bureau’s Board of Directors President, acknowledges the organic process. According to a Stanford study organic foods were less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, while organic foods were higher in E.coli. E.coli is able to accept genes from related bacterial species to form “stable variants” that can pass the borrowed genes along to other bacteria as they divide and multiply. The E. Coli variant known as O157:H7 is especially dangerous, it picks up Shigella gene for a toxin that destroys red blood cells and includes a syndrome of bloody diarrhea, kidney failure, and death.
Would you rather risk getting E. coli, which could ultimately end in death or condone the use of toxins to kill things such as E. coli? He questions whether the organic food consumer’s purchase is actually organic because there is no testing done to check. He argues organic foods are labeled organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. Yet again, here is evidence of government (FDA) oversight where they trust that producers are honest when they say that their foods are organic because of procedures that were followed. Who is to say if these foods are honestly organic? How will consumers know if these producers are telling them the truth or robbing them for their buck? Why should consumers trust producers if they can’t even trust their government who took no responsibility for food safety until the late 1800’s?
Should the FDA consider a new proposal for the restriction of animal feed?
Nestle argues that by switching to hay there is a 1% chance of an E. Coli presence, which is more appealing to the health on consumer. Meat producers are not likely to favor these approaches because they are concerned about putting the maximum weight on their animals, and drug producers are still concerned with selling antibiotics to meat producers. One may ask why the FDA has not stepped in and demanded producers to take precautionary measures? I’ll tell you why, effective as of March 1st, 2013 $209 million of the FDA’s budget was cut as part of automatic budget cuts. This cut caused the agency to conduct 2,100 less inspections, an 18% decline compared to 2012. The blame now shifts back to higher up government officials who were responsible for these budget cuts.
700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. They only conduct 5,000 inspections annually, visited less than 2% of the places under their jurisdiction and inspected less than 1% of imported foods prior to 2001.
Consumer reports argues that animals being raised and fed organic feed would be safer for our food supply in some ways, but there is no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden variety bacteria including salmonella. The alternatives are presented, it is just a matter of producers being willing to accept them. No matter what stand point we view it from, there is no way out of this dark hole we call the food industry. They are backed by government officials and basically have the power to walk over everyone including us, the consumers. As consumers we never know what we are really eating, we fall into the trap of advertisement, which makes us want to go out and buy these foods. Some of us are restricted by prices and cannot afford to buy the highest quality products and we all know the story behind low quality foods. Many choose to go organic but how would they be able to prove or test this?
UNIT I REFLECTIONS
My understanding of the writer’s project is not to focus on the author’s thesis. All throughout high school the most essential part of an essay was the thesis, this is the line that teachers always looked for and criticized the harshest. I believe Harris was pushing us to look at the writers purpose, methods, and materials used to present their ideas. I think my purpose was to inform readers about their foods. I used photos that related to issues I pointed out to mock and cause reactions.
The sorting it out workshop was helpful, it allowed me to put all my ideas down on paper and draw connections between certain articles. Part D and E were the most beneficial in my opinion because it allowed me to identify topics that each source talked about and that laid everything out for me. From that it was easier to decide what I wanted to write about without having to go reread everything because I already knew the main topics of each source. They all shared similar topics. Workshops helped me get my ideas flowing. Sometimes at home I am not able to think because there is so much going on and I constantly think about everything I have to do. The workshops helped me focus specifically on the assignment and I was able to practice, peer review and discuss with the class crucial parts of the assignment. Also just having you, Amy, take the lead on what we would be doing for the day helped because we got to focus on individual segments/parts of the project.
My understanding of synthesis is being able to use information that was given along with your own ideas to provide a point. This is important because it shows how well one can interpret other people’s ideas as well as add on to them. I believe I provided good synthesis here : “Nestle argues that by switching to hay there is a 1% chance of an E. Coli presence, which is more appealing to the health on consumer. Meat producers are not likely to favor these approaches because they are concerned about putting the maximum weight on their animals, and drug producers are still concerned with selling antibiotics to meat producers. One may ask why the FDA has no stepped in and demanded producers to take precautionary measures? I’ll tell you why, because $209 million of the FDA’s budget was cut and took effect on March 1st, 2013 as part of automatic budget cuts. The blame no shifts immediately back to high up government officials who were responsible for these budget cuts.” I was able to draw connections between Nestle and Szabo’s articles as well as odd in my own opinion.
I would say my accomplishment was getting the article done. It may not be perfect but I tried to use everything I learned in class to formulate it. The hardest part was trying to fit the “Huffington Post” told. All writers are different even those within the Huffington Post.
I began here “While we would think government agencies has it in their best interest to protect us, consumers, humans and animals in what we eat; it is evident that this is not the case due to outdated policy and the overlooks in our food system. Although agencies such as the FDA and USDA have a set of jurisdictions, they do exercise their authority in situations that matter the most. A huge flaw within the system starts Congress, the FDA and the USDA and their continued lack of enthusiasm when it comes to inspecting our foods.” As I read over my work I realized that I did not do much to support my claim of outdated policy and I would have went over the word limit if I continued on to discuss the USDA. I ended up here “While we would think government agencies has it in their best interest to protect us, consumers, humans and animals in what we eat; it is evident that this is not the case. Although agencies such as the FDA have a set of jurisdictions, they do exercise their authority in situations that matter the most. A huge flaw within the system starts Congress and their continued lack of enthusiasm when it comes to inspecting our foods”.
I didn’t implement any organizational strategies of my own. I used all the info from the workshops and started piecing things together. I decided to start with Nestle because I feel like her work was very useful especially for me because she talked about things that I wanted to touch on. Then, I went on to use Consumer reports because the first connection I noticed was between these two pieces, this was also the first connection I wrote down in the sorting it out workshop.
As stated in answering question 3 I believe I provided a good synthesis here “I believe I provided good synthesis here : “Nestle argues that by switching to hay there is a 1% chance of an E. Coli presence, which is more appealing to the health on consumer. Meat producers are not likely to favor these approaches because they are concerned about putting the maximum weight on their animals, and drug producers are still concerned with selling antibiotics to meat producers. One may ask why the FDA has no stepped in and demanded producers to take precautionary measures? I’ll tell you why, because $209 million of the FDA’s budget was cut and took effect on March 1st, 2013 as part of automatic budget cuts. The blame no shifts immediately back to high up government officials who were responsible for these budget cuts.” I was able to draw connections between Nestle and Szabo’s articles as well as odd in my own opinion.” I honestly think I am still struggling with synthesizing because it is something new to me so I would not say it evolved necessarily I am still in the process of becoming familiar with the technique.
In earlier drafts I did not have a lede because I did not know exactly what was expected from that. After our workshop in class I decided to use a quote for my lede and it is the same on that is attached to my final draft.
I would like to get better at synthesizing and coming up with good “ledes” if they are present in next unit.