When we think of food what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Is it how well it’ll taste once we cook it? Maybe if you sauté it the juices will be more vibrant and ready to be served for dinner? Or are you more concerned with the quality and nutrition of your food?

Whether an experienced foodie or a newcomer to the ways of the food world these are all questions you’ll most likely have at some point while dining. Yet do we as consumers of all of these delicacies ever truly wonder what it is that we’re eating, where did it come from, who do we have to thank for the steak or lettuce on our plate?

Knowledge is power; it can build something up or tear something down. So maybe it’s time to stop believing everyone has your best interests in hand and to start taking action on what you believe is best for you. You are not just an average citizen but the person who buys the meat, the vegetables, the person who keeps the system afloat, the consumer and ruler of how our world should work.

The food industry has been on the burn for many years but it was only but until the past 10 years that we’ve seen a cry for awareness. There is a silent battle going on behind the supermarket lines and it’s time for the rest of America to know what’s going on. Documentaries such as Food Inc. have been filmed to show us the “nitty gritty” of the food industry, its ups and downs but mainly its downs. Whether it is the skyrocketing increase in diabetes within this country or how our economic status influences the quality of our food.

“I’m always struck by how successful we have been at hitting the bull’s-eye of the wrong target. I mean we have learned- for example, in cattle we have learned how to plant, fertilize and harvest corn using global positioning satellite technology, and nobody sits back and asks, “But should we be feeding cows corn?” We’ve become a culture of technicians. We’re all into the how of it and nobody’s stepping back and saying “But why?” – Joel Salatin (Food Inc.)

The documentary never shy’s away at showing us the grotesque and the stats behind conventional farming. There is also the abuse towards animals and the conditions in which they are thrown. The fact that we feed cows corn feed, knowing fully well that their bodies were not built for it just goes to show where we stand in the tide that is the food industry. Of course this is just one of many outlets that have reported about the food industry and it’s tricks of the trade. From an article about food safety and government regulation by Nestle to Consumer Reports tackling the meat industry in their article titled “You are what they eat”. There is a plethora of information and arguments when it comes to the double-edged sword that is our food industry. So where should you as a consumer stand amongst all of this chaos? Where do you begin your journey to educate yourself on what goes into your food and what expectations are reasonable and which ones aren’t?

The bigger companies that claim they run the food business in the best manner to the local farmers who would have you boycott these systems in lieu to their suffering and their animals suffering, there is no real right or wrong. There is only change. Our system needs to change but maybe not in the way  big bill industries would like, nor how the FDA would have it regulated. The same way we value teaching history to our children and value debating in college settings is the same way we should value educating ourselves in what goes on with the food we eat. What’s meant to go in our bodies and what doesn’t as the title of consumer reports article suggests “You are what they eat” but can’t we also say “We are what we think?” It took me all but a few seconds to plug in “chicken antibiotics” into a search engine and I got a plethora of information.

A website called www.nationalchickencouncil.org was one of many that caught my eye. It not only gives you information on chickens but also what certain food jargon means, such as antibiotic free compared to raised without antibiotics. It also contains many stats and surveys that convey where consumers stand when it comes to purchasing and consuming chicken. (As recent as of 2014.) So if people are willing to eat chicken more than ever as the consumer surveys suggest. Why is it that the idea of antibiotics not tackled more frequently? This is just one of many issues we as consumers seem to look the other way for. Ask yourself why that may be.

“Our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be” –Consumer Reports

Ranging from issues with animal feed to antibiotics being fed to our chickens. Consumer Reports brings up many of the same issues Food Inc. does, however they cite many studies and also corporation’s (such as the FDA and CDC) own statistics to back up the claims they make on how we as a people deserve to know what goes into our food and we deserve to have a say in that process as well.

 “Whether this assertion is true is a matter of some debate. Safety is relative. The most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of foodborne disease in the United States defies belief: 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, 5,000 deaths.” – Resisting Food Safety (Nestle)

Nestle chimes in with the numbers and political agenda that have plagued the food industry. There is a blatant problem with how the system works and the government knows it. Resisting Food Safety takes what Consumer Reports is trying to do (Educate the people.) and adds on what I’d call a wake up punch to the gut.

“Most of us do not worry much about the possibility that foods in our supermarkets might be contaminated and dangerous, and we act on the basis of what Nicols Fox calls the “unspoken contact” among food producers, government regulators, and the public to ensure that food is safe.” – (Nestle)

So maybe it’s not just the government who blatantly disregards the holes in the system but maybe it’s also our lack of knowledge and denial that the system needs changing. The information is there for the “harvesting”. We as day-to-day consumers need to stand up, make a stance, educate ourselves, and advocate for the changes our system needs! Whether you take a stance on how antibiotics are used, the treatments of crops, or even just the political pool of the industry; you have a voice and you should use it, just like Nestle, the people involved in Food Inc. and Consumer reports! Be a part of a needed revolution! You are what you eat; you are what you think, from the food on your plate to the laws of each state.

References:

• Food, Inc. Movie One, 2008.

• Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: U of California, 2010. Print.

• “Consumer Reports Online.” Consumer Reports Online. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

• “Home – The National Chicken Council.” The National Chicken Council. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

Reflection Questions

Christopher Rivera

Unit I / 10%

Using the homework, in-class workshops, revision workshops, etc.

1. Describe your understanding of the “writer’s project”? How were you able to identify the texts’ “project”? Discuss your own “project” as it pertains to this particular blog article. The writer’s project incorporates a topic they’re talking about, why they are talking about said topic, and their main reasoning/opinion about said topic. I was able to look at the various texts we read in class and identified the projects by looking for where major facts were situated and what the writer’s thoughts on these facts were. My project was to use the sources and facts we came across in class and my own research to try and influence people into educating themselves more on what’s really going on in the food industry.
2. Describe your completion of the “Sorting it Out” workshop? What sections were most beneficial to the development of your ideas—and why? Discuss how this workshop assisted in development of draft and/or assignment organization? Working with brainstorming really helped. Also summarizing the main argument of each source also helped me condense my writing so I could hone in on the exact bits of the articles I was using.
3. Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples. Synthesis in my understanding is when the sources you have work well and build off one another. An example of this that I used in my final blog articles would be the connection of foodborne illness and how they are our rather aren’t addressed as they should (Nestle/Consumer Reports.)
4. Describe your own accomplishment (ofsomething) during this unit. I accomplished the ability to condense what I want to argue in fewer words than I’d usually do. As an ETS major we learn to give us much details as possible but this assignment required the opposite of that so it was a bit of a struggle. I overcame it though.
5. Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution? My main idea started off as mere rant about how people don’t educate themselves enough when it comes to food safety. As I incorporated my sources into my post I then realized I had the opportunity to maybe influence or even educate those reading my blog post. So although still at heart a sarcastic rant about how people are biased and in denial my post became more educational and argumentative as well. This came a long due to my use of synthesis with my sources.
6. Discuss what organizational strategies you implemented in order to structure this blog article. Provide examples from a section(s) of an earlier draft and other excerpts in later drafts to support your response. Going off of my response to question 5, I really used my sources to coincide with one another so they could build off each other and make the argument of the post stronger than if I were to have just used my own opinion or only one source.
7.  Provide an example of the final draft where you successfully synthesize 3 texts in a concise and direct manner. Discuss how this evolved throughout the drafting process for you. I successfully synthesize Food inc, consumer reports, and Nestle by the end of the blog post. After discussing each source on it’s own I used all of their main points and joined them together to push the idea of educating yourself about the industry further. It even helped me along the lines of my conclusion as well.
8. Discuss the evolution of the ‘lede’ in earlier drafts and its final version (provide examples of each): where did you begin, what feedback did you receive, and how did it end up in final blog article? At first I wanted to be funny or even sarcastic with my lede to catch the readers attention but then I thought, maybe I should structure my lede like the intro to a cooking show. Whenever you’re changing the channel on tv sometimes those intros catch your eye and you end up watching someone cook for 30 minutes. I thought I could do the same but for my blog post. Victoria thought it was a great idea compared to my draft I shared with her in class.
9.  Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects. I’d like to really hone in on being able to condense more and also be more precise. I felt at times my ideas exploded and flew all over the place and I deleted a lot of my content to get back into the fray of things. I need to work on that.

Evan Becker

Rough Draft of Huffington Post article.

“The way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000. (Food Inc.)” With all of this volatile change to our food industry, one would think that the rules and regulations have adapted to go along with the changing times. But in fact, the US government has done the exact opposite by letting itself become corrupted and allowing the food industry to create hundreds of unregulated GMO’s into our food. Marian Nestle talks about the lack of institutional regulation in her piece, “Resisting Food Safety,” Nestle argues that the lack of institutional control on the food industry has allowed the large food corporations to become too big to fail, to go along with their endless power in Congress. Nestle highlights the amount of lobbying that the food industry does in congress to prove her argument. Robert Kenner’s documentary, Food Inc. takes a first hand look into the world of the meat corporations in an attempt to show how evil and backwards their methods for producing food are. Blake Hurst in his Organic Illusions piece, has the dissenting point of view, that a Stanford food study proved that the conventional, modern, farming methods are not only moral, but also the healthiest way to prepare our meat. Hurst does believe though, that the government can not be trusted either way to do its job correctly. The Consumer Report, You Are What They Eat, that shines a light on the new corn feed supply used by modern meat corporations, tries its best to be non-partisan in its method, but ends up proving that the huge food corporations really do not care what they put in our food, as long as it continues to make a profit. These articles all argue and discuss different issues and benefits of the modern food industry, but all four of these articles come to the exact same conclusion, that the US FDA is not doing enough to properly regulate what goes into our food.

Nestle argues throughout the article that government lobbying is the culprit behind the complete lack of control for the current food industry. Early on in her piece she writes “ Food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. (Nestle)” This lack of control has led to a food industry that no longer has to worry about being given sanctions for contaminated food and it has created a culture of lies and deceit all in the favor of making a bigger profit margin. The biggest issue with capitalism, is that without regulation, companies will try their darn hardest to achieve the largest profit margin possible. They do not care about morality, its all in the name of making more money. Nestle later says “Attempts to give federal agencies the right to enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in Congress.” Nestle’s argument that the influence of big money in congress has inhibited the regulatory agencies is absolutely correct. By not separating big business and Congress, the government has allowed itself to become corrupted to the whims of the huge corporations who are dodging the rules to gain more money.

Carol Tucker Foreman, The Director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, had a very pointed opinion towards the current FDA regulations about the feed used for cows. She says “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be, and the FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk.” Consumer reports in general is a mainly unbiased information piece, but their tidbits about the risk towards unregulated animal feed show the limits to our government. Plus, if it can be proven that this feed supply is significantly worse for you than old-fashioned grass, then the government could have a big scandal at their hands. It would be proven that corruption in th egovernemnt is actually affecting their decision making, proving that the influence of big business has corrupted our government. Consumer reports opened their report by saying “Our investigation raises concerns that the Federal Government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.”

While Blake Hurst in general has conflicting viewpoints with the rest of these projects, the one thing that he agrees is the biggest problem in the modern food industry, is the unreliability of the government to safely regulate out food. He points this out by saying “But the question arises: How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety of organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses? (Hurst)” Hurst is very distrusting of the government, despite the fact that the government is supporting his way of farming. He statement here is contradictoryto the rest of his argument since in general he is using the governmentally funded study, to prove that conventional farming is just as safe as organic farming. Hurst also uses the british government to back up his opinion by saying “The British version of the Food and Drug Administration commissioned a study in 2009 with results strikingly similar to Stanford’s. This is not surprising to most farmers, who have to deal with what is, rather than what someone might wish.” Hurst’s distrust of the American government continues since he feels like he must use the British FDA to sound credible. Ironically, Hurst is still showing that the government can’t be trusted to accurately and uninhibitedly prove that conventional farming is safe.

The most damning piece of evidence against the current regulatory system occurs in Food Inc. when the Title card shows “In 1972, the FDA conducted approximately 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted 9,164.” This fact truly highlights how far the government has gone from trying to regulate our food. All four projects are arguing different things about the food industry, but the one theme throughout all four, is that the US government is too weak on the food industry because of the lobbying and influence of big money companies buying their way to freedom. Eric Schlessar can see that the big business has infected Congress when he says.  “These companies fight, tooth and nail, against labaling. The fast food industry fought against giving you the calorie information. They fought against telling you if there is trans-fat in your food. The meat packing industry for years prevented country-of-origin labeling. They fought not to label genetically modified foods; and now 70% of processed food in the supermarket has some genetically modified ingredient.” The food industry is on of the most powerful corporations in America because without them, the entire country could starve. This power has given them the ability to change our food to make it cheaper to produce but unhealthy to eat. No other corporation has this kind of bargaining power, so food corporations have been allowed to run amok with little to no regulation.

Our current system needs to change if we are to adapt to the fast changing world around us. Not only do we, as a nation, need to create a divide between the big money corporations and our Congress, we also need to get rid of the corrupt culture that surrounds the US government. If, and only if, we do those things will I be able to continue to have confidence that the food I eat, will not make me sick. It is our duty as a country to change the culture of the Congress.

John Carino

Writing 205

Amy Barone

Food Politics

2/21/15

Everybody knows that cows eat grass, but it is less known that the cows whose meat most grocery stores sell were raised eating corn. This seems like it would not be much of an issue if it weren’t for the reason that this diet increases the likeliness of their meat being dangerous to eat and spreading dangers such as ecoli. Food plays a vital role in our daily lives. Without it we cannot survive, so shouldn’t it be a priority to make sure that what we eat is safe? Food in America has become industrialized to able to meet the mass needs of consumers across the country. However, as a result of this industrialization emphasis has begun to lean more towards the “industry” than “food” in the food industry. Companies have begun cutting corners to maximize production and profits. As a result of this the quality of the food being produced has changed drastically and many other problems have been caused. While promoting public awareness about issues in the industrial food system is important, beyond just spreading awareness there needs to be a more significant movement to instigate change in the industrial food system and improvements in government regulation of this industry. These changes would include more transparency of food production to consumers and fewer “shortcuts” being taken to save money, for example feeding animals what nature intended for them. These operations would result in a safer public well-being for Americans from issues such as food borne illnesses and diseases.

One reason that there has not been significant change in the problems caused by the food industry is because of the government’s lack of involvement in making sure these industries are not taking shortcuts. In “You are what they eat” the writer shares “our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” (26) Understandably the government is not capable of regulating all food manufacturers at all times because “the FDA can’t blanket the country with inspectors, so it delegates much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70 percent of feed-company and renderer inspections.” (27) As a result of delegating regulation, the government has lost significant control over the industry. And states are often less likely to take a stand against these industries because of the importance of profits these companies makes and the control these powerful companies may have over the more local governments. These companies have simple goals, “to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible.” (26) The problem with this goal and finding loopholes is it compromises the quality and safety of the products they are producing, which therefore puts consumers as risk. These “regulatory loop-holes could allow mad cow infection, if present, to make its way into cattle feed; drugs used in chickens could raise human exposure to arsenic or antibiotic-resistant bacteria; farmed fish could harbor PCBs and dioxins.” (26) The federal government needs to take a stand and instigate more firm regulation, even if it compromises the profits of these companies. The more powerful these companies become the less ability the government will have to make sure the food consumers buy is safe. Consumers have very little power in fighting these food industries, they cannot simply stop buying food. That is why it is important that the government plays a big role in standing up to the companies and making sure they stop hurting their consumers.

Not only is the food consumers buy not always safe, these companies also deceive consumers into thinking what they are buying is often healthier and more nutritious than it actually is. Blake Hurst in “Organic Illusions” shares how two contrasting studies present contradicting results to how nutritious “organic food” really is. Hurst writes “a recent study by a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” (2) The food industry heavily relies on misleading consumers, as a result of this they are able to sell many products at escalated prices. Many companies that sell “organic” foods are owned by the larger conventional brands that they pretend to be competing with. This is another form of deception and sly misleading that needs to be stopped. Hurst argues “the organic farming narrative depends upon the belief that conventional farming sacrifices the present for the future, that the chemicals and fertilizers applied by conventional farmers poison the soil, and that this careless use of the unnatural will infect the things we eat and the productivity of our farms and ranches.” (3) However, this argument for the organic food industry is compromised by the studies that find no differences in nutritional value of foods after over half a century of hybrid seeds and 2 decades of genetically modified seeds. This does not necessarily mean there is no difference at all between conventional foods and organic, “the Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in E.coli.” (3) It seems one bad quality has been traded for another, yet the food industry has been able to turn our higher profits from organic foods by misleading consumers with lies. Hurst shares “even if a naturally produced pesticide is less toxins than its synthetic counterpart, it may be applied at much higher rates than the comparable manmade chemical.” (7) One way to combat this and other deceptions by the food industry is to make sure industries are not able to hide or mislead consumers. This can be achieved by regulating complete transparencies to the food industry about how the food was produced and what products have been added to the product and the process. By advocating for more clear and detailed labels consumers can be significantly more informed on their decision making when purchasing food. This will also require government intervention but also consumers to take a stand.

Consumers blindly accept the lies fed to them by the food industry. Marion Nestle writes “they accept at face value the endlessly intoned mantra of industry and government: the United States has the safest food supply in the world. Whether this assertion is true is a matter of some debate.” (27) The food industry has become more and more powerful and continues to fight and beat the government in every attempt to regulate their processes. Nestle presents that “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. They lobby Congress and federal agencies, challenge regulations in court, and encourage local obstruction of safety enforcement.” (27-28) It seems difficult that there is any way to overcome such a powerful industry, but it has been done in the past. Look at the decline of the tobacco industry as a precedent. With the joint forces of consumers and the government problems because acknowledged and actions were taken to protect consumers.

In conclusion by creating a more transparent food industry and instigating stricter regulation, the food industry could return to an industry with a primary purpose to serve the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products. One small step at a time of making the right decisions in making food safe will have a significant impact on creating a safer America. It will take time effort from much of the population, but it is not an impossible goal.

Works cited:

“You Are What They Eat.” Consumer Reports, January 2005.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions.” The American, October 1, 2012.

Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

Food Politics: Money Over Everything

            You may think your food supply is safe, but is that really in the best interest of producers? If it was, why has there been an epidemic of food outbreaks over the past decade? Perhaps the only health food producers are concerned about is the health of their bank accounts.

It is impossible to deny that that over the past decade, the technology used in the United States’ food production system has improved greatly. The United States is now able to produce a great deal more crops, such as corn or soybeans, in a fraction of the land required in the 20^th century. Another scientific and agricultural accomplishment that the food production industry is responsible for is the significant reduction in time of growth for chickens. In the mid-20^th century it took roughly a little more than 3 months to raise a full grown chicken, today on the other hand a full grown chicken can be produced in less than 50 days. This rapid advance of the food production industry is the result of the growing population and demand for food in the United States. Although these advances have allowed us to have a steady food supply, they have also presented problems for regulating government agencies. These advances create loopholes in existing regulations in which food producers can take advantage of.  Another problem is the close relationships that some of the regulating agencies have with food producers. Top food producers are able to pressure regulating agencies, such as the FDA or USDA, in order to sway regulations in their favor.

Issues are made clear, from multiple viewpoints in Food Inc., You Are What They Eat, Marian Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, and Blake Hurst’s Organic Illusions. These texts have brought up issues and controversies that I have not heard about before in my life. These texts have been able to provide me with both sides of a “war” that I did not really know was going on. I admit I was ignorant to the supposed corruption between food production companies and Federal agencies such as the FDA, as well as the lack of consideration for the health and safety of the general public. I knew money made the world go round but I thought we at least cared about ourselves as a society more than making money. This appears to be one of, if not the largest motivating factor in this ‘war’ we call food politics. All of the pieces we have read or watched have had consistent themes throughout one another, although they did not necessarily take the same stance on the same issues. For example Organic Illusions by Hurst was clearly against the method of production used by the organic food industry and one of his main arguments was that organic production is not efficient enough to sustain the entire country, and would require more workers to join the work force. “People who are now working in other industries would have to leave them in order to provide the manpower necessary to replace technology in agriculture, and what they would have produced in those careers would figure into the cost of organic farming. These opportunity costs would be huge” (Hurst). It is clear that this argument is based on the premise that it would cost too much money to have only organic, ‘healthier’ food. Similarly, In Food Inc. Carole Morison was explaining how she was being forced to always upgrade to new equipment, along with various other farmers interviewed during the film. In particular Morison was in the predicament where she needed to upgrade her chicken coop to an enclosed version, which was even more inhumane than the conditions that chickens were currently in. These chickens would die daily due to sicknesses caused by living in close quarters in their own feces. This showed me that the food producers don’t care about the safety of the animals or the people that consume them, and that they only care about making extra money on having more chickens in a smaller inhumane space and upgrade fees. Continuing with the common thread of money being the most important factor, in Nestle’s “Resisting Food Safety” she clearly addresses many current and growing problems relating to our food supply and the increasing number of food-borne illnesses. She calls out organizations and federal agencies on their corruption and oversight of food handling and contamination issues going on with our food supply. She also explains how agencies such as the FDA are not able to put regulations in motion due to a lack of funding. This surprised me because it shows how we don’t have a priority for the general public’s food safety. Nestle and Food Inc. both bring up the argument that there are people who hold positions of power in government agencies such as the FDA that have close connections with Big name food producers, such as Monsanto. In “You Are What They Eat” both sides of the argument on food safety is brought fourth. However a common theme throughout the article that stuck me was when the people working for the food industry were saying that these cheap and fast solutions that kill bacteria on our food, instead of addressing the issue that is actually causing the growth of harmful bacteria on our food. For example, they say that cattle and chicken are still fed corn based feeds. This corn based fed is known to causes growth of unwanted bacteria inside the animals that eat it, however it is significantly cheaper to feed the animals corn because it is cheaply available. Michael Pollan, an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in various publications around the world exposing the problems in the food production industry, says in Food Inc. “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” This requires food producers to use ammonia solutions on possible contaminated meats, which is also shown in Food Inc. This means that food producers would rather save money on feed and have a cheaper, not necessarily safer, solution to food contamination, instead of addressing the source of the food contamination, the feed.

Nestle’s article on food safety in particular addresses the complicated politics that involve the government’s ability to properly regulate the United States’ food production standards and safety protocols. “Although outbreaks of food-borne illness have become more dangerous over the years, food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal”(Nestle, 27). Nestle points out that major food industries have significant power when it comes to rallying against an unfavorable regulation proposed by government agencies. This claim is further backed up by Food Inc. when the small farmers that were fighting a very powerful company, Monsanto who is the creator of genetically modified soy beans. The fact that Monsanto is the creator and patent holder of these seeds not only gives them total control over their product, it also gives them legal and financial power over the farmers that use their seeds. Monsanto has made it illegal for farmers to save their seeds, which is a serious concern for neighboring farmers that do not use Monsanto products. Roger Nelson was interviewed in Food Inc. because he was being sued by Monsanto for promoting other farmers to save their seed by continuing to save his non-genetically modified seed as well as his clients’. Ultimately, Nelson was unable to continue running his farm and business due to a copious amount of legal fees. Furthermore Nestle goes on to say in her article “the FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under the pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of drugs” (Nestle, 46). Perhaps this is a wake up call for government agencies to take power away from the businessmen and into the hands of the correct regulating agencies that way the public can be assured a safer food supply.

In conclusion, all of these texts share the same information stated in a way that supports their arguments, however the most common theme when you look from an unbiased perspective is that it is easier for the food industry to find a cheap adjustment to the system we have instead of changing the parts of the system that need to be. It all seems to boil down to money being the main wall that is preventing the proper regulations to take place to make our food supply safer.

Today, the majority of people in the United States do not know where their food is coming from. This is probably because the people in charge of our food industry do not want people to know that our food system is completely corrupt.

Corruption is a simple matter of right and wrong. Anyone or anything can become corrupt based on the actions the person or thing practices. In this case, the food system that is used to circulate the majority of the world’s food products to public markets has become corrupt. The interesting part about our corrupt food system is that most of the people who consume the products have no idea where these products came from or how they were prepared. In the food system we have today, four or five large corporations own the majority of all food products sold in grocery stores today. There are hundreds of different brands of meat, produce, snacks, or whatever types of food you can think of that are sold in a supermarket but, its really only a handful of corporations that own the greater part of all of them. In the film Food Inc., Michael Pollan, an American author, activist, and professor of journalism at UC Berkeley talks about how big business has run our American food industry into the ground. Pollan goes on to say, “The average grocery store has 47,000 products which makes it look like there is a large variety of choice – but it is an illusion – there are only a few major companies and a few major crops involved.” Pollan and the rest of the experts go on to talk about how big business runs the food industry and how their methods to grow bigger and better food have substituted the quality of our food for higher profits. That’s the problem, if people knew that large corporations were behind our food and that they were making our food in an unnatural, inhumane manner, they would probably have something to say about it. Our food system is corrupt because the people in charge of it know what they are doing is wrong but, they still do it anyway. In an ideal world, the people who know the most about our food would be in charge of developing how our food system works. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

The meat in our grocery stores is not prepared in a friendly, heartfelt way. The way most people want to believe that their meat is prepared is that the animal is born and raised on a farm where it was able to roam free and grow the way god intended it to live. They believe the animal was killed humanely by the farmers who raised it in a way that did not make the animal suffer. That would be nice if it were true. The fact of the matter is, in this corrupt food system we have today, animals are basically tortured in cramped quarters from birth up until the moment they are slaughtered. Eric Schlosser, another American author and journalist from Food Inc. discusses how the animals that are raised in these massive farms and slaughterhouses are inhumanely mistreated. Schlosser says, “Plus they are now feeding corn to animals like cows who, by evolution, are designed to eat grass and in some cases farmers are even teaching fish how to eat corn because it is so cheap.” Aside from not giving these animals the proper space and freedom to grow, these farms are feeding the animals feed that they cannot naturally digest. The farms use corn feed and growth hormones to fatten up these animals so we can harvest twice as much meat as these animals were supposed to carry. Several facts and statistics about how the chickens we eat every day are actually being grown are up on truthaboutchicken.org. Today, Chickens are being grown to twice the weight of chicken Sixty years ago in about half the time. An appalling fact found on this site included, “Many chickens lie in their own waste for much of their lives, with open sores and infections. These unhealthy conditions could potentially increase the risk of foodborne illnesses like salmonella.” The processes used in our food systems are horrific and mind-boggling but, the worst part is these corrupt practices are potentially life-threatening for humans. Because of the unethical methods used in today’s food industry, humans are contracting various foodborne illnesses from tainted meats that are sold every day in local grocery stores. These illnesses are the result of the unsanitary facilities that are used to raise and prepare these animals for slaughter. Cows and chickens are raised on farms with very little space and little to no maintenance, meaning these animals are constantly walking, living, and sleeping in their own feces which is a great way to get exposed to infections and other types of illnesses. The number of people that have been getting sick from these types of tainted meat have not necessarily been greatly increasing; the diseases have just been getting worse. Marion Nestle, a well known author and professor of nutrition at NYU, gives us some facts and statistics about these foodborne illnesses and how they’ve progressed. She says, “Some years ago, a carefully investigated Listeria outbreak among 142 people who had eaten a commercially produced unpasteurized soft cheese caused 48 deaths and 13 cases of meningitis.” Nestle goes on to talk about how foodborne illnesses used to be some small form of Salmonella or Staphylococcus or some pathogen that was easily treated and resulted in pretty standard, non-lethal symptoms like diarrhea, stomach pains, nausea, etc. However, since the early 1990s the versions of these viruses and bacteria have been getting much more aggressive and much more deadly than they have been in the past. Diseases are scary and its scary to know you can contract these types of diseases from the food you buy at the super market everyday.

If our food system is having all these problems, shouldn’t we be doing something about it? Shouldn’t there be some sort of authoritative body to watch over these food production systems to make sure our food is actually safe to eat? We do, the only problem is, the groups in charge of watching over how our food is made play a big part in how our food industry has become corrupt. Government programs like the FDA, USDA, and CDC are supposed to watch over food processing facilities and make sure there aren’t any health code violations, unhygienic processing practices, or any other method that could lead to possible contamination of meats or other food products. Consumer Reports, You are what they eat, discussed a great deal about how our government and how our food regulation departments, like the FDA, aren’t really doing anything about the way our food is being processed. The members of Consumer Reports were able to talk to feed-company executives and they said, “Our investigation raises concern that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” Even the executives from these corporations agree that the production of their food is a potential risk to the health of their consumer. A major reason for this is that there are not enough FDA and USDA inspectors to consistently watch over the vast number of slaughterhouses and livestock farms that are in this country. The FDA has around 700 employees in charge of inspecting all the processing plants that produce meat, eggs and poultry; which results in each one of these places getting an inspection every one to five years. Even when there are certain health and safety violations that are found in these processing plants, if the farm is owned by one of the large corporations, the heads of the corporations always has a friend on the inside of the FDA or somewhere in these government-based departments to help them get out of it. We learned a great deal about how former corporation executives from places like Monsanto land authoritative positions in departments like the FDA and USDA and are able to help their old business partners when they get into a bind. It is difficult to think of a way to free our food industry from the clutches of big business when these corporate executives have monopolized the industry around them.

The corruption that has overwhelmed our food industry starts and ends with big business. We cannot rely on greedy business owners to take proper care of our food. Large profits are not a reasonable compromise when it puts consumers at risk. We know what is going on behind the closed curtain of our food system; now its just about making an effort to do something about it.

Yes, we’d all like to know what is in our food. At the moment, we do not have a way to track our meals from the animal it came from to its packaging at the supermarket, and we’ll likely have to wait decades before we see any improvement on that front. However, with the elections coming up later this year, now would be a perfect time to address what the government is doing to make sure we all eat pathogen-free meals.

Who is on our side?

The debate on what we should put in our food is one that has been occurring since before many of us were even born. Humans have been eating for… well, just about as long as we’ve been around, and the argument over what we should and can eat cannot be traced back to a single source.

For just as long as we’ve been discussing our food, the question of who holds power, not only related to what we eat, but to our lives in general has been discussed. Long ago we created organized government in order to help us answer these important questions. Nowadays, we wonder if the government we helped create is really on our side in choosing what we should eat. Our government needs to take further steps to convince us that they are concerned with our health.

We are the scientists who conduct research on various foods. We are the article writers who report the findings of our own kind. One could even argue that we are the people that choose what we should and shouldn’t eat. There is one problem in this debate, though. We’ve segregated ourselves into different groups lobbying for the abolition of different foods others of us may have enjoyed. This tear in our society has blurred the lines of who “we” are. Who is looking out for our best interests? Who is in the food business for selfish reasons? This new school of debate is relatively new compared to what we’ve been used to.

The food dispute

Since the dawn of the food debate, it has been a fairly black/white argument against the major food corporations. Companies like McDonald’s have been feeding us unhealthy food since its inception in 1940. Critics argue that McDonald’s does not care for our health, and is only in the market to make money. In the 2008 American documentary Food Inc., major corporations like Monsanto Company, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, and Perdue Farms are asked to be interviewed on what methods they use to manufacture our food. Every single one of them declined an interview.

While people on the other side of this debate agree that these companies are nowhere near innocent, they retort that it is up to us as individuals what we want to feed us and our children. This disagreement has led to the debate on organic vs. non-organic means of production.  Thousands of people have argued, with experts like Blake Hurst and Food Inc.‘s own Michael Pollan leading each side of the debate.

People like Pollan and Hurst have been arguing on the use of antibiotics and different chemicals in our food for the better part of a decade now. In their article You Are What They Eat, Consumer Reports offers a viewpoint on the argument. They raise the question “If all animals were raised organically – on feed lacking pesticides, animal byproducts, and antibiotics – would our food supply be safer?” responding “Yes, in some ways. There would be less risk of mad cow disease, little or no arsenic in chicken, and fewer bacteria able to resist antibiotics. But there’s no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden-variety bacteria, including salmonella.” Consumer Reports takes a mildly impartial stance on the issue, at least compared to experts Blake Hurst and Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health Marion Nestle.

Hurst, one of the most vocal supporters of the non-organic side of the argument has made his point very clear over the past 10 years. 4 years ago he published an article named Organic Illusions to reiterate his conclusions. He believes that “Plants and animals aren’t the least bit interested in the story the farmer has to tell. They don’t care about his sense of social justice, the size of his farm, or the business model that he has chosen…That means that when organic and/or conventional farmers provide the environment necessary for growth, plants and animals respond. It would be a shock if this did not occur, and it shouldn’t really be a story at all.”

A very controversial opinion to hold, indeed. Hurst’s ideals are met with opposition from many people like Nestle, who believe that “The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture affects food-borne illness in ways that are especially troubling. Growers treat infected animals with antibiotics, of course, but they sometimes give antibiotics to whole herds or flocks as a preventative measure.” Nestle argues that giving antibiotics to entire herds can make bacteria like salmonella grow resistant, and survive the cleaning process of the meat.  The problem is that there are simply too many variables that can influence bacteria in our food. In many cases of breakouts of illness, the point at which the food became infected is almost never known. This debate will therefore continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps for long after we are gone. Therefore, this article is not written to address the issue of what we should put into our food, but who we can trust to make sure we do not fall ill.

The Government and our Food

Although the experts mentioned disagree adamantly on how we should process our food, they all agree on one point: our government may not have our best interests in their warm hearts. We can all agree that we must put a certain amount of trust into our government. Hurst mentions that “It is the position of the critics that you just can’t trust the government on these issues, which may indeed be the case. But the question arises: How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety or organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?” The short answer? We can’t. Well, not to the extent that we do.

According to Consumer Reports many investigations “[Raise] concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” Nestle shares the opinion, stating that “We will see that food-borne illness is more than a biological problem; it is strongly affected by the interests of stakeholders in the food system – the food industry, government (agencies, Congress, and the White House), and consumers.”

Roberto A. Ferdman of The Washington Post also addresses issues of FDA and USDA oversight in interview with Bill Marler, a lawyer specializing in food-borne illness. When asked to speak about his “few major frustrations with food safety in the United States,” Marler solemnly explains that “On the FDA’s side, which is 80 percent of our other food supplies and imports, there’s a skeleton crew of inspectors,” and that “Most of the food-borne illness outbreaks that [Marler has] been involved in over the past 20 or 30 years, most of the manufacturing facilities have never had an FDA inspector in them.”

So, everyone is in agreement that the government is not doing as much as they can to monitor the safety of the food we are eating and feeding to our children. Instances have occurred in the past decade where organic and non-organic foods alike have cause food-borne illnesses in people. Why not address the oversight of both foods instead of uselessly discussing which food we should eat? It seems concerning that not only are members of the government not regulating the food we eat properly, but also are making money from these big name companies. The candidates running for office cannot answer questions on steps they will take to ensure that our food is safe if they are not asked. It is up to us, the people eating these meals to bring it up. After all, when is the last time you heard of a government official suffering from the effects of E. coli?

Isabella Suppa

Prof Phillips

WRT 205

Some Truths About Our Food

    “In just 2002, the typical American consumed an average of 137 pounds of beef, chicken, fish, and shellfish per year,” states the article You Are What They Eat. While we are lead to believe that beef, chicken, fish and shellfish are the source of power and protein that are body craves, nonetheless, that is not always the case. Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella, and E-Coli are amongst the most common illnesses from these various foods, totaling 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths and most of us are not even aware of this. According to Resisting Food Safety, “Many pathogens infect the animals we use for food without causing any visible signs of illness.” Today a major proponent to these illnesses is the grand scale that our food is being produced on. Unbeknownst to many, the packaging on items is solely an illusion and only a few corporations control the whole industry. Another leading debate among the food industry is weather or not the suppliers and demanders should go organic or remain conventional.

    According to Resisting Food Safety “In the late 1980’s health officials found salmonella in one-third of all poultry and estimated that 33 million Americans experienced at least one episode of foodborne microbial illness each year.” With this being said the outbreaks of food borne illnesses over the years are becoming more dangerous and prevalent and food producers are resisting the attempts of government agencies to impose controlled measures- “… food producers repeatedly deny responsibility for foodborne illness…”(Resisting Food Safety). Today, the most blatant illness is the E-Coli outbreak. E-coli derives from infections that come in direct contact with food and water that have been contaminated with feces; the virus then eventually kills red blood cells and can be lethal. Years ago people were only aware of undercooked hamburger, and ground beef to be the only sources of E. coli. However, today things such as fruits, vegetables, apple cider and sprouts have also been infected. A prime example of this was when E. coli swept Chipotle’s all across the country. An obstacle among the 58 cases that broke out is that Chipotle could not find the direct source of the E. coli- possibly stemming from the tomatoes or beef. Food, Inc. displays an instance in beef where the illness was lethal to 2-year-old Kevin. Kevin passed away from E-coli in his burger, and it turned out that the beef Kevin consumed was not recalled until 16 days after. Kevin’s mom sought justice in honor of Kevin, and now a law has now been put into place, “Kevin’s Law”- Kevin’s Law allows the USDA to shut down plants.

            We go the supermarket and see dozens of options and brands thinking that each came from different places. However, the truth is that this is just an illusion; much of all the products come from the same plants. As quoted in Food, Inc. a farmer’s goal is to “produce a lot of food, with a small amount of land, at an affordable price.” Frankly, a few major corporations control the whole industry. Small farms raising numerous kinds of crops and animals have been replaced by unfathomably large factory like methods. Today, Tyson is one of the leading meat packing companies in the nation, in 1970 Tyson controlled 5-25% of the market, today Tyson now controls 40-80% of the meat packing market. Inevitably when raising massive populations of chicken or cattle in the same location calls for more manure then can be contained or converted to fertilizer. Normally when farmers raise an average amount of animals they can control and compost the waste, which is a process that usually generates enough heat to kill bacteria. Today that is much harder to get done with the volume of animals inevitably increasing the tendency for contamination and illness.

            From personal experience in my local grocery store, I see the organic section continuing to expand each year. Years ago we didn’t have three isles dedicated solely to organic products with options that expand to organic shampoo, make up, toothpaste and much more. According to Food, Inc. the organic industry is growing at an annual rate of 20%, however as stated in Organic Illusions “The quantity of organic sales constitutes considerably less than 4 percent of the total market.” The argument of organic food versus conventional food is a prevalent topic among farmers today. In the article You are what they eat discussed is going organic, “If all animals were raised organically on feed lacking pesticides, animal byproducts and antibiotics- would our food supply be safer? Yes in some ways. There would be less risk of mad cow disease, little or no arsenic in chicken … But there is no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden- variety bacteria, including salmonella.” Ironically when deciding between organic or conventional food, in organic food no check is ever done to test the reliability of these titles. Although you are may be buying organically, organic foods have a higher rates of deadly E. coli, while conventional foods were higher in pesticide residue that substantially less toxic. Lastly, if we were to go organic, there is not enough land readily available for production as quoted in Organic Illusions, “ If food demand nearly doubles over the next 50 years, as its predicted to do, there just isn’t enough arable land available to support a wholesale adoption of organic methods.”

        Unfortunately today the reality is that the food we consume on a daily basis is not always safe. Foodborne illnesses have had an affect all across the country in a variety of different ways. Many different kinds of illnesses have been seen with E. coli being the most dominant. The harsh reality is that our food is coming from all the same places and it is very hard to regulate things on such a grand scale. Even organic “all natural” food is not always the answer. While, this may all be the case today- I am hopeful that in the future with awareness our food production ways can be changed and it can lead to a healthier lifestyle.

Do you know the true cost of your food? While it may only be a few dollars at the grocery store, in reality your food comes from a poorly regulated industry that is wreaking havoc on the environment and putting your health, and the health of everyone around you at risk.

Our food production technology is at its height, but that technology is  used to grow the profits of the poorly regulated food industry rather than focus on improving public health and wellness. While there are two different agencies watching over our food supply, their duties are intertwined in a way that makes both of them borderline ineffective.

Marion Nestle points out in Resisting Food Safety that the FDA focuses on everything but meat, but even then their duties only end at the slaughterhouse. This means a fairly small agency monitors all of our food, drugs, and even our meat all the way up until it is killed.

At the same time,  the much  larger USDA only monitors animals post-death. The way that the duties are split between the two agencies is mind bending, and shows the convoluted way our food is taken care of. It also shows how easily and often oversight happens regarding our food.

For example, at one point she mentions, “the law specified that the department’s (USDA’s) authority began at the slaughterhouse. USDA inspectors had no right to recall meat once it left the plant. If USDA inspectors believed that a packing plant was producing tainted meat, their only recourse was to deny further inspection, in effect forcing the plant to close.”

The USDA is not able to prevent outbreaks, and if an outbreak does happen, they may not recall the product. This is a clear problem, since their only real course of action is to stop doing their job and shut down a plant in that way. Nestle also points out that the original legislature for the food industry was created to protect the animals, indicating one reason the agencies may have so many issues.

In Food Inc. Kevin’s mom tells the story of how she lost her son, and then mentions Kevin’s Law, which would have forced the USDA to establish performance standards to decrease pathogens in our food, as well as allow the USDA to shut down plants. Kevin’s law was never passed, however Obama did pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011 which upheld some of Kevin’s law. This gave the government slightly more control over what goes into our food, but it still may not be enough.

The most common problems brought to light about the food industry are food borne pathogens. Harmful bacteria such as e. coli, listeria, and salmonella are byproducts of our highly industrialized food production system where there is blood and feces all over the slaughterhouses and animal coops.

These diseases are allowed to spread into our food through various means and can cause mass outbreaks throughout the country. Rather than maintaining a clean environment for the animals and solving the problem at the root, the food industry came up with different way to combat the pathogens.

In Food Inc. they showed that there are small amounts of ammonia mixed into ground beef to try and kill E. Coli. The documentary also talks about how animals are given antibiotics, even if they are not sick, to try and prevent diseases.

Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions points out that harmful chemicals such as ammonia have been shown to not be harmful in small doses; however, he does not mention that there is still a real threat of antibiotic resistance. The antibiotics given to our food is spread to humans when they eat it, this then causes bacteria to build up a resistance to antibiotics, creating much more harmful pathogens.

Another side of government oversight is shown in You are what they eat, which drives home the point that our food may not be what we believe it should be, and there is not much being done about it. For instance, parts of very sick downer cows are approved to be part of animal feed, as long as they are not fed to other cows.

Meanwhile, these cows can be fed to pigs and chickens and fish, which can be eventually fed back to cows, causing a possible spread of the prions that cause mad cow disease. Even the restriction of not feeding downer cows to other cows is lax. For instance, “more than four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still hadn’t acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.’”

If the FDA is not taking steps to ensure that mad cow disease is not being spread, are they truly doing what they are supposed to do?

Another consequence of the ever-growing food industry may be an environmental one. According to Cassandra Brooks in Consequences of increased global meat consumption, the worldwide consumption of livestock will double by 2020. Because of this huge increase, the food industry is growing its profits, and ignoring the huge effects they are causing on public health, wellness, and even the environment.

Livestock production has become hugely industrialized in order to meet the demand, and it is taking a toll on the environment. According to the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, “Livestock Production accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including 9 percent carbon dioxide and 37 percent of methane gas emissions worldwide” (Cassandra Brooks).

Global warming and climate change mainly affect farming communities, the United States experiences some of this backlash, but it is mostly felt in other countries, such as Ethiopia, which rely on farming to survive. Global warming also affects places such as California and Central America, which are the sources of most of our produce. By creating so many greenhouse gas emissions, the livestock industry may be harming the other parts of our food production system, as well as creating worsening poverty and hunger in areas such as Ethiopia.

While global warming is not the focus of this article, it does bring to question the true consequences of our food industry. The food industry has caused many small farmers to go out of business, or switch to industrial farming, which they may despise. It also is responsible for a rise in food-borne pathogens and deaths from these pathogens.

Another consequence may be the rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes. When our food is processed, there are certain ingredients put in like high fructose corn syrup, which is harder to process than simple sugars. This creates a spike in insulin, causing a feeling of hunger more quickly, even though a person may not truly need more food.

Food Inc. shows this when introducing a lower class family that has to feed themselves. Rather than buy fruit and healthier foods in the grocery store, the family eats at McDonald’s most days because they can afford it, and it doesn’t take too much time out of their busy schedule.

Because of their inability to buy nutritious food, the whole family is overweight or even obese, and now has to budget in diabetes medication for the father.

What we should be asking the food industry is, should they really be risking the health and lives of family in order to make a larger profit? Why is addictive fast food so cheap when less dangerous food is too expensive for many people in America?

After realizing these consequences, it may seem that organic foods are the obvious choice, however, many people cannot afford to buy organic food, even though according to You Are What They Eat, Organic food is only 20-30% more expensive.

There are critics to organic food, like Blake Hurst, who in Organic Illusions cites facts from a study done by Stanford University comparing organic produce and conventionally grown produce. According to Hurst, growing all of our food organically will cause a shortage of land, labor and cause us to revert to the early 1900s when tractors did not exist.

While Hurst does bring up certain points, like the fact that the government does not check to see if companies are actually following organic guidelines, and there are natural pesticides. Hurst incorrectly cites the Stanford experiment, which already has results that conflict with other studies.

 One would think that the government would prioritize public and animal health when it comes to putting food on our table, but the real priority for food producers, the government and its regulatory agencies: money. A lot of it. The food industry is continuing to grow and change rapidly with a rise in demand and production. The United States Government is the watch dog over the food industries giving the responsibility to a handful of agencies. An example that can prove how the food industry has changed is the time it takes for a chicken to grow. In the 1950s it took about 3 months to fully raise a chicken, now it takes only 49 days. That’s about half the time! How does that happen? Something is doesn’t seem right and this is what we will discuss in this post. The food industry has evolved substantially in the past century, however, the government hasn’t been able to properly enforce regulations thus creating regulatory loopholes that food producers are able to bypass. Although the government is heavily influenced by these top companies, change can happen with the public being exposed to and aware of all of these faulty practices that are putting money at a higher priority than the health of its consumers.

GREED

One thing that I have recently started to realize is that money runs this country. It’s as simple as that. As populations grew so did the demand for food. Farmers needed to produce a lot and fast. The example mentioned above truly shows how farmers have been altering their practices in order to keep up with the rising demand. How can the amount of time a chicken fully grows be cut in half? One answer that I can give you is that it definitely is not natural or healthy. Not only is it unhealthy food but it’s food that costs nothing (I wouldn’t even consider it food). As a matter of fact, “every year in the U.S., 11 billion pounds of animal fat is recycled into animal feed.” We’re feeding the animals that we eat recycled animal fat? Why is that? Because it’s cheap. In You Are What They Eat the article says for food producers and companies “the goal: to fatten animas as fast and as cheaply as possible.”  In Food Inc., Michael Pollan, who is an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in many publications around the world highlighting the problems of the food industry, said that “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” We have all heard of the recent outbreaks of E. Coli that have happened at Chipotle which even made the store close all of its chains on one day. E. Coli is no joke and people can lose their lives but one thing that really angers me is that the practices the food industry is using today produces more E. Coli. Michael Pollan also goes on to say “give an animal grass in one day and 80% of the E. Coli they have will be gone.” But why don’t they feed their animals grass if it got rid of all that E. Coli? Because they wouldn’t achieve their “goal” and their chickens wouldn’t be able to grow fully in 49 days.

REGULATORY LOOPHOLES

One of my biggest concerns about the food industry are the regulatory loopholes that are present so easily accessible. In You Are What They Eat by Consumer Reports the problem is introduced right off the bat. “Our investigation raises the concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the food supplies……Regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection.” Regulatory loopholes can allow any type of infection! The United States Government has the responsibility to protect its citizens but yet there are regulatory loopholes in an industry that provides the food that we put on the table for all types of people to eat from little kids to the elderly. Food is a life necessity and we cannot live without it but yet we can’t be sure about the safety of the food we put on our tables? That’s scary. One question on my mind is how are there regulatory loopholes? I believe the following reasons from a few experts help answer that question for us.

In Organic Illusions by Blake Hurst points out something that doesn’t make me feel any better. Hurst says, “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims. So, even if all procedures are followed, it’s possible that conventional pesticides are present—either from drift from neighboring conventionally farmed fields, or because the producer has been less than honest in his certification.” Although he says organic foods that can mean that any foods are like that as well. God knows what type of containments people have been consuming with there good. How are food producers able to lie about how they grow their food? This is a prime example of the government and regulatory agencies not doing its job. If these loopholes are present in the food industry, I can only imagine what kind of loopholes can be exposed in all other industries. In You Are What They Eat, it is mentioned that “about 80 percent of seafood sold in the U.S. is imported. Yet the FDA tests only about 2 percent of those imports, mainly for drug residues.” Wow. If food that is imported is barely tested for contaminations (mainly drug residue but they should be looking for ALL possible containments) then it must be extremely easy for food that is produced domestically to pass tests and end up on our plates. The inspection and testing procedure is completely broken. Farmers can lie about the way they grow their food and much testing isn’t done. The government can do more but they haven’t and in You Are What They Eat, it says that “the Government Accountability Office, has called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s data on inspections of animal feed producers “severely flawed.” Yet federal food-safety agencies have failed to tighten restrictions.” How have these food agencies failed to tighten restrictions?

Marion Nestle helps answer the question of how these food agencies have failed to tighten restrictions and how they have failed to protect the consumer’s health and interests in his work called “The Politics of Food Safety.” Nestle says, “attempts to give federal agencies the right to enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in Congress, sometimes joined by the agencies themselves.” I can only think of one word to describe this: corruption. Marion Nestle even goes on to say that there has been a “historic closeness of working relationships among congressional agriculture committees, federal regulatory agencies and food producers.” How can it get better if there is such heavy influence from these top companies? According to Food Inc., “in 1910 the top 4 companies had a market share of 25%, today the top 4 have a market share of 80%.” In addition to that, at one point in the documentary it showed how some of the top company executives ended up holding a high level position for the same regulatory agencies that were regulating the companies they used to work for. Whose interests are put first at that point? The company or the consumer? The company. You would think that it couldn’t go any further than the government and its agencies being heavily influenced (corrupt) however, Blake Hurst from Organic Illusions brings up another controversial point. In his article he uses a study that was published from scientists and researchers from Stanford University. The article says that “a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” Later in the article Mr. Hurst then brings this into light “Stanford University and the authors have been accused of being in bed with food producer Cargill, and all the bishops of the foodie orthodoxy have responded by disagreeing and, in many instances, changing the subject.” Why would food producers, such as Cargill, love a study that says organic food has the same health benefits as food that is grown conventionally? Because growing organic food is more expensive than growing food conventionally. However, that is not the part that strikes me. The part that strikes me the most is the fact that a private university, including professors and scientists and everyone that helped with study, are also being corrupt/heavily influenced by these food producers. A study from a private university that used scientists and professors should be telling the truth and if they were telling the truth they wouldn’t be “changing the subject.” Hurst then delivers the final blow by saying, “How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety of organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?” Like I mentioned previously, all of this revealing information is simply scary.

To say this is scary can actually be an understatement. Money is starting to run everything, or maybe it already has and I’m just starting to realize it now. When it comes to the food industry politics shouldn’t be involved as much as they are and money shouldn’t be a higher priority than the health of the consumer. People’s lives are at stake, including young children. Why should I be questioning my trust with the government when it comes to the food industry? I shouldn’t be. Then I start to question many other things such as the medicine that we are prescribed. What’s in it and where is it coming from? We don’t really know what we are consuming. Change can only come with the public becoming aware of the flaws in the system. With the corruption of these agencies and the amount of influence the food producers have on Congress, it only makes the fight harder. But with wide public support and more flaws being exposed this can change and I believe it will.