Pierce Noonan

Prof. Amy Barone

WRT205

1400 word draft

The way we eat has changed more over the past 50 years than the previous 10,000 years before that. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It is a great representation of the idea on how much change our generation has accomplished. However, when we have a food system that is being brought up with topics like federal oversight, E. coli breakouts, and even abusing and bullying local farmers and seed planters; there is definitely still room for improvement. Our food system is being blamed for lying to the consumers about the truth behind the production of food and exactly how safe these products on our shelves of a food market are. The major companies in our food system are abusive to smaller workers to an extent that it needs to be contained. Federal oversight to the point where the consumer is hurt by food borne illnesses is a major problem and there must be an answer to this issue.

There are food industries and producers that oversee consumer health in exchange for high production rates and vast money income. Federal oversight is a problem that occurs when it comes to the production of food. There have been numerous documentaries, articles, blogs, and other pieces of writing that try to state the overall issue of federal oversight. In one of the highest viewed documentaries ever, Food Inc., producer Robert Kenner said, “The industry doesn’t want you to know exactly what you are eating.” This is because what we are actually putting into our system is much different than what it tastes like. From a Consumer Reports article, “You Are What They Eat;” the title says it all. We are eating what the animals ate in the past and this is not always a good thing. From this article, it is spoken that “Cattle and chickens are still given plant-based feed: Corn and soybean meal make up 70 percent to 90 percent of most commercial animal feed. But the remaining 10 percent to 30 percent of feed can differ radically from what cows and poultry would eat in their natural habitat.” That 10 percent to 30 percent could harm the animals and then that means it is likely to harm the consumer as well. Furthermore, “The government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog, has called the US Food and Drug Administration’s data on inspections of animal-feed producers “severely flawed.” When the FDA is being called out for flawed inspections, then what else is there to protect the consumers?

Not only does the government and food industries neglect their flawed work, but consumers are being punished with food borne illnesses like E. coli. E. coli is a bacteria that forms from fecal matter and is proven to be harmful and in some cases fatal. From Food Inc., expert Barbara Kowalcyk lost her 2 and half year old son to this deadly disease. This is a loss of life because of the lack of moral and sustainability in the food system. Along with the loss of life to her son Kevin, E. coli breakouts across the US have been sprouting including the most recent Chipotle Mexican food chain incident. According to the FDA website, “The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) along with state and local officials are investigating two separate outbreaks of E. coli O26 infections that have been linked to food served at Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants in several states.” According to this credible website, as of January 27, 2016, the CDC reported a total of 55 infected people with 21 reported hospitalizations within these states. This along with all of the small cases of other food borne illnesses that aren’t reported are a major issue. How can we eat something if we are not 100 percent sure it is healthy enough to make it through the night without having to call a doctor? E. coli merits extra attention because it shows how well the food system and society changes and how to provide new opportunities for the spreading of disease through food. From an article by Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, “Resisting Food Safety,” “E. coli infections originate from farm animals, and such animals increasingly harbor this variant.” Running back to the original topic of federal oversight; where the food is produced is where the problem holds and turning the other way from such conflicts results in lack of trust in the food production process, especially sometimes resulting in the worst case, loss of life.

Not only does this disease erect at the hands of the producers watch, the ingredients farmers give their animals are creating other issues as well. From the Consumer Reports article, mad-cow disease is brought up and it is explained that such an illness is transferred up the food chain. From this article, a protein known as a prion, “can be malformed and infect cud-chewing animals with mad cow disease.” This illness is spread throughout the community it lives in and eventually infects other organisms beyond that ecosystem. Even in an article, “Organic Illusions,” by a Missouri farmer and frequent contributor to The American, Blake Hurst, he argues the effects of organic against conventional styles of farming. It is stated that, “organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in e. coli.” No matter how you make food or treat it, there are chances of e. coli. However, food borne illness is a problem that effects the consumer because producers and whoever is in charge do not commit to the responsibility of providing healthy food products.

In most cases, farmers farm for bigger companies and they are doing what their contract tells them to do. For example, an expert chicken farmer, Carol Morison, had her contract terminated by a bigger company because she wouldn’t upgrade to the closed window ventilation housing. She was one of the only people that admitted, on Food Inc., that what farming has become shouldn’t be called farming anymore, rather an assembly line. It is a problem that the people like Barbara Kowalcyk, who lost her son to a disease that came from a food that got passed by inspection, can’t even tell a documentary analyst what she ate and why because she was afraid of being sued by the food agency. Not only is federal oversight a major problem, but the way the food agency is protected by themselves is also a major problem.

Abuse is a word that is used in just about any category, you name it. Child abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, verbal abuse, and even food abuse. Small time farmers are being abused and treated maliciously. From Food Inc., a seed farmer laughed when he was asked the question, “What happens if a farmer saves the seeds?” He then answered, “There is only one company that does this now and that is Monsanto.” Then, he explains that Monsanto will investigate anyone who tried to save seed. Another seed cleaner Moe Parr was brought to trial after Monsanto had set up an investigation into him and other local seed cleaners. Moe Parr said, “What scared me the most…” and then explained that Monsanto had records of every call, text, and credit card purchase he has made. Moe Parr had to settle with Monsanto because he could no longer pay the bills. Moe Parr was bullied by Monsanto and he is definitely not the only one to ever have been. The almost monopolized company of Monsanto, is not even worried about the government or other industries on stopping them because of the amount of income and power they indeed control.

There are so many questions that can be asked about what is being done to prevent the bad habits of our food system. How much can we, the consumers, do to make a change? Well we can only do as much as we are allowed to. The food system may have changed extremely, however it is in need of an even bigger change. Many people like Robert Kenner, producer of Food Inc., and Marion Nestle, nutrition specialist and writer of “Resisting Food Safety,” are announcing the truth and are fighting to make a difference in our food society. Others like Consumer Reports’, “You Are What They Eat,” and Blake Hurst’s, “Organic Illusions,” are arguing to inform the reader and let the world know exactly what is at steak(stake) when it comes to the food that we eat every single day.

“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

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, 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 even such issues because we place our trust in the government and believe that they serve in our best interest because after all we did elect these officials. This article will take you behind the scenes of the food industry and the United States’ government oversight and outdated policy 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 alligations 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 cant 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 informs 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 mediciations, specifically antibitoics. 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 baateria 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 multitply. 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 bloddy diarrhea, kidney failure, and death (Marian Nestle, “Resisting Food Safety, 41). Would you rather risk getting E. Coli, which could ultimately end in death or condone the use of toxins use 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 cant even trust their government who took no responsibility for food safety until the last 1800’s?

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 teh FDA’s bughet 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.  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. 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?

Should the FDA consider a new proposal for the restriction of animal feed? Or on a simplier note, is the FDA worthy of our trust? 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% ofthe places under their jurisdiction and inspected less than 1%  of imported foods prior to 2001. (hyper link sources, the first time you talk about it you must source it)

Food safety is a major problem in the United States. Money and power have a huge role in the policies and the production of the food. However, the industry is the one deciding which policies get put into place. How is this possible? Why is the government letting the food industry choose what is important and what isn’t? Throughout the whole food industry, all levels of the industry are trying to make higher profits by making the food process more industrialized and efficient, but leaving behind all oversight of the meats or produce, resulting in product that may be contaminated with no way to stop it.

The Food industry has had a shift in how they produce their products. As Food Inc. explains, the way farming has changed in the United States is drastic. When the word farmer is said, most people naturally picture the stereotypical farmer in the mid-west with his hat and his tractor planting his crops. Unfortunately, only part of this is true. The farmer is very likely to be a business man and he’s planting using techniques that would maximize his yield and profit. It is probably not the safest method. The farmer is most likely planting a genetically modified organism (GMO) seed. The chemicals that are used to plant these crops can be dangerous. The vegetables are then picked up and run through machines to be sold to distributers. The processes they use are scientifically improved every day to give higher yields. As the director of Food Inc. explains, “Back around the turn of the last century, the average farmer could feed six or eight people. Now the average American farmer can feed 126 people.” Blake Hurst explains that with one of the worst droughts in California’s history, the amount of production, or the yield, was still higher than the yield in 1993. This means that the yields are much higher than they were 23 years ago even though the environment is not cooperation with the farmer. The farmer is trying to have high profits because he has many bills due to lack of government regulation. He has to pay for his seeds, even though his crops produce seeds, because big corporations like Monsanto control the industry. When we think of meat, the process is also not quite like what we think. The cattle are raised until it is of slaughter age. While it is being raised, it is often fed things that are not natural to the animal’s diet. For example, Consumer reports has an articles named “You Are What You Eat”. In this article, it is stated that “Processed feathers are an acceptable source of protein in cattle feed”. In addition, the article also describes how animal “waste” is used to be fed to other animals. Antibiotics are also put in the cattle’s food to prevent outbreaks of illnesses. The industry is doing this to increase their profits. If cows are healthier and fatter, there is more meat to sell. Since the waste is naturally produced, it means that there is no need to spend much money on food to feed the cattle. All this increases the profit margin for the farmers. When the consumer (also known as the reader) puts this meat into their mouth, they are also eating everything that the farmer fed to his cattle. This is dangerous because the cattle were given drugs, which can be bad for humans. Although farmers have to ask the government for permission before adding a new ingredient to the food supply, it is not highly regulated. This means that farmers can cut cost as much as possible by feeding cattle foods that are not natural or healthy for them, but make them fatter.

Government oversight is weak at best for the food industry. One of the reasons for this might be the amount of money that the government sees from the industry. Taxes have to be paid for all the food that is eaten or produced. Taxes are also paid for all the ingredients that are used to prepare the food whether it be chemicals, seeds, equipment, or food for cattle. Farmers are also a big supplier of jobs for local towns. This means that if a farm is making more money and hiring more people, it looks good for the representative of the government from that area. As a result, the government representative is not going to be looking for ways to implement regulations on the industry that is making him look good. On a bigger scale, there is a lot of money involved when candidates are trying to be elected to office. Since the food industry is so large and powerful, they are in the position to make large contributions to campaigns and they can lobby representatives of the government already in office. All this doesn’t mean that the government is doing nothing and looking the other way however. Instead, the government puts forward regulations that are either extremely difficult to oversee or regulations that require too many inspectors to oversee successfully. An example of this is the division of responsibility between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Some examples of the division include the USDA being in charge of soups with more than 2% meat or poultry while the FDA being in charge of soups with less than 2% meat or poultry. Similarly, if you have spaghetti with meat stock it is the responsibility of USDA, but the FDA is in charge of spaghetti with no meat stock. This means that if an agent of the USDA walked into a restaurant and saw a meal prepared that consisted of spaghetti with marinara sauce and it had a violation of the code, the agent wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. With regulations like these, it is very hard to catch violations in progress. If the government would try to make these regulations more viable by simplifying them, there would probably be a negative reaction coming from the food industry. This in turn would mean less money being given to the representatives that are trying to change these policies. Christopher Leonard explains how damaging proposing food regulation can be when he says “In 2010 and 2011 when there was a really ambitious reform agenda proposed by President Barack Obama, it was absolutely dismantled, pushed back and defeated by the meat industry lobbyists”. He continues on to say that it probably “did more damage than if they had not proposed to do anything”. In addition, many of the unelected members of the government who can make policies are involved in the food industry one way or another. Many of these people were executives in companies before their post with a government agency. After the current presiding administrations leaves office, many go back to the industry. Why would these members of the government make their lives harder in a few years? They don’t pass the necessary policies because they know that these new policies would make their lives more difficult in the future and would mean lower profits for the company they would work for.

Big corporations unfortunately control the way the food in American is produced today.These corporations not only have the money to be able to manipulate the market whichever way they want, but they have the customers. There are four companies that produce 85% of the meat in this country. This is very important information for several reasons. The first is that these companies control the prices on the meat market. Over the last several years, meat prices have been going up. Another reason this is important is because they can also choose what to pay farmers. If they pay farmers less than what they used to be paid, as is the case, farmers will only have two options. They will have to find ways to raise their cattle for cheaper or they can go bankrupt. If they raise their cattle at a cheaper cost, there is likely to be problems such as outbreaks of diseases or cattle being fed things that are not natural to their diet. Lastly, another problem with these corporations having so much power is that when they do force these farmers to go out of business, the US federal government ends up paying the debt accumulated by these farmers. This just goes to show how powerful these corporations are and their control in the government. Not only do they get to bankrupt the farmers, but then they get to call the government to clean up the mess. Another example of a company that controls the market is Monsanto. This corporation owns the GMO seed for corn through a patent. Farmers who want to plant corn have to plant this GMO or risk legal action from Monsanto. Even though they have their own seeds, they have to use the corporation’s seed. If it does go to the legal system, Monsanto can outspend any individual farmer and win the case. Monsanto is rumored to have surveillance teams that look for farmers who are cleaning and using their own seed. They will take legal action on these farmers, ultimately leading them to use Monsanto’s seed. Corporations like these have the power to control the food industry, manipulate the government, and ultimately can do whatever they want with their food and no one will know or say anything for fear of what these companies can do.

Richard Caswell

24 February 2016

WRT 205

Problems with the Food Industry

Wouldn’t you like to know if the food you eat is contaminated with a deadly disease? Wouldn’t you like to know if that disease could potentially kill you or someone you know? The food industry doesn’t care. They don’t want you to know about their unsafe and inhumane processes that they use to produce the food that you buy. All they care about is your money!

The food industry has experienced exponential growth over the last century. As a result, food safety has increasingly been compromised in favor of decreasing costs and increasing profits. Food companies such as Tyson Foods and Cargill Foods control a large percentage of the meat industry which gives them tremendous influence over prices and government policy. This puts food safety in the hands of the very companies that that produce and sell the foods. Food safety is supposed to be in the hands of the government. Government agencies such as, the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture were created to ensure that food is safe to be sold and consumed. The documentary, “Food Inc.,” and the articles, You Are What They Eat, Organic Illusions, Resisting Food Safety, and Why Do Farmers Spray Chemicals On Crops, do a good job at exposing and/or examining the many problems within the food industry. Three major issues that are becoming topics of debate regard the feed that is given to animals on farms, the chemicals that are given to these animal, and the amount of government oversight. Each source gives its own view on these subjects which allows the reader to analyze and understand the issues and their causes

What goes into the feed that is then given to animals has been a highly debated topic. In the documentary Food Inc., the director gives an argument against the current way that feed is produced. He argues that the food that is given to animals is harmful because it goes against what is supposed to be given to them. Giving corn to cows is dangerous because cows are not supposed to eat corn so their bodies are not very healthy which leaves them vulnerable to disease. Corn can also carry diseases such as E. Coli. It can then be spread to animals and humans. If the corn contains a disease, then the cow gets the disease. When combined with the horrid living conditions that these animals are forced to live in, the disease can then evolve and spread faster to the humans that eat the meat that comes from that cow. But this is not the only issue with the feed as the Consumer Reports article makes apparent. The article points out that the feed also contains unhealthy things such as recycled waste among other things like feathers and feces. These are meant to fatten the animal quickly so that they can be slaughtered and sold sooner. But instead, the feed helps make the animals walking petri dishes that contain many different diseases and bacteria. In addition to the unhealthy feed, all animals, regardless of health, are given medications that are supposed to “boost growth and keep infections at bay.” Although the conditions seem bad, the Consumer Reports article does give hope to the consumer, though, by providing some steps that they can take to protect themselves form these sometimes deadly diseases.

As society continues to advance, so does technology and the food industry has taken full advantage of some of them. Companies continue to modernize and increase their profits at the expense of consumers by reducing their costs using new technology. These big companies have resorted to some inhumane practices as another way to reduce costs and increase profits. In Food Inc., they visit some of the biggest farms in America that house hundreds of cows, chicken, and pigs. These animals are all kept in tight, dirty spaces; sometimes even being kept in their own feces. This brings down the maintenance costs by giving the animals the bare minimum needed to live but it also creates a breeding ground for bacteria and disease. These companies have now resorted to another technology that is supposed to kill the bacteria: pesticides. Pesticides can be natural but they can also be artificially made and they can potentially do more harm than good. Blake Hurst in his article, Organic Illusions, spends some time discussing pesticides. According to a Stanford study, that he repeatedly refers to, pesticides cannot be doing any harm because if they were, then farmers would have stopped using them years ago. He also goes on to say that there is no way to be sure that organic foods, that are meant to have no pesticides used in the growing process, contain absolutely no pesticides. The Food Journal article backs up this point of view. The article insists that new pesticides that are made are modelled after natural pesticides and they are safer than before. Jennifer Dewey Rohrich, a third generation farmer, says that her family must protect their farm in order to keep producing and if pesticides were slowly damaging their land, they would not be using them anymore. The Consumer Reports article argues that pesticides and antibiotics lead to disease and if farms and companies were to stop using them, then there would be less risk of getting some diseases. This contradicts with Dewey Rohrich’s view because Dewey Rohrich mentions that farmers are very safe when it comes to pesticide use and she argues that pesticides make food safer because disease carrying organisms are killed and so they can not infect any of the plants. The article claims that without pesticides, the cost of farming would significantly increase because alternative methods of protecting crops would have to be used and so the price of goods that are bought in stores would increase as well. So again, it all comes back to costs. At the end of the day, food companies only care about their profit margin so they will continue to use whatever products or practices allow them to spend less and make more.

This all ties nicely under the idea that there is a lack of government oversight. The government created the Food and Drug Administration and the United Stated Department of Agriculture in order to oversee the food industry and ensure that the companies are following regulations that were that were implemented in order to make food safe for consumers. Food Inc., Marion Nestle, and Consumer Reports all argue that the government needs to do more. From Food Inc., “in 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164.” There has clearly been a sharp decline in government involvement in the food industry. Consumer Reports and Marion Nestle go more into detail on the two agencies that are supposed to be protecting the consumers of America. Nestle believes that the lack of federal oversight stems from the “illogical division of food safety oversight.” An example being that the USDA regulates hot dogs in pastry doe and the FDA regulates hot dogs in rolls. But the main issue regarding these two is that they are very understaffed. The FDA has about 700 inspectors and does an inspection about once every five years due to this. The USDA has about 7000 inspectors, which is more than the FDA but is still not enough because the USDA does daily inspections but they cannot be thorough because they have a lot of companies to inspect. This results in situations like how the FDA only tests about 2 percent of imported seafood yet about 80 percent of seafood is imported. These are the very things that allows food companies to get away with skimping on proper safety procedures. The FDA and USDA need to be more funded. They ultimately need an overhaul in the way the agencies are structured. The current state of these agencies is one of inefficiency allows for the selling of unsafe food.

The food industry has been able to get away with not following safety instructions properly due to their size and power and also the lack of government oversight. This makes buying food dangerous because the average consumer is not able to tell whether the food they buy will get them sick. They put their trust in these companies and in the government and in return, they are let down when outbreaks occur and people die. These companies and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them need to be overhauled if people want to feel safe when buying new food.

Safe and Healthy Foods: Responsibility of The Consumers, Producers, Or Regulators?

We all tend to go to the store, read a few labels, compare prices, and buy whichever food best fits our interest and budget, correct? We buy things that may sound healthy, or seem to have the best price. We are quick to trust the labels that say “all natural” and “organic”, and trust that we are buying the best thing for our buck. But is this always the case? Are these labels really as true as they seem?

Companies like to function in ways that will help them achieve their ultimate personal wants and people forget to take that into consideration when they shop. Some companies’ main goal is to make the most profit form their product; others main goals are to ensure safe foods for their customers regardless of the cost. In the article Resisting Food Safety, Nelson makes the point that food safety politics involves diverse stakeholders with highly divergent goals. She is getting at the fact that companies function differently depending on their personal desires. To extend this idea, Consumer Report’s article You Are What They Eat discusses how companies choose to feed their animals and prepare them for the market, it states “The goal: to fatten animals as fast and as cheaply as possible”. This claim proves that they are really out for the money. Not the health of consumers, or animals as opposed to traditional farmers. With this in mind, the producer is going to feed the animals whatever they want in order to grow the animals as economically reasonable as possible. The health of consumers is not their number one goal. Consumers do not understand that the chicken and other produce that they consume are placing them at a higher risk for health complications. Despite the fact that the FDA and USDA have approved all of the ingredients used in animal feed, I take it that not all of it is good for us as humans. People need to understand that just because the FDA approves our food, they are not always the best.

For consumers who believe in buying the most healthy and appropriate food, there are always the organic options. Which consumers tend to believe is better for them, as Hurst arrives at a different conclusion. While Consumer Report offers the option of shopping organically, Hurst’s article Organic Illusions opposes organic farming and proposes conventional farming because of its economic and environmental reasonability. Hurst’s article sheds light on the hidden facts about the unreality of organic food. His claim is that conventional farming is more reasonable for today’s economy and supply demand. Hurst states that it takes fewer acres to produce the same quantity of food conventionally than it does organically, even though there is a yearly yield decline for organic products. This also confirms that different famers have different beliefs in farming. Hurst’s being that we should farm in ways that helps sustain the environment. Hurst also helps us understand that organic foods people buy may be just as unhealthy as conventionally grown food, yet it is more expensive because of its special qualities. Despite Hurt’s not so positive connotation of “organic”, he does believe in consuming food that is good for you, while doing so in a more economically reasonable way. One claim that I find interesting that Hurst brings up is that companies get away with many things that will fool organic consumers such as that fact that “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers they have followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims.” This ties into the issue of poor regulation by the USDA and FDA. Hurst makes the point that if they can get away with many faults that people don’t know about, why spend so much money on the product? Another

While reading these articles, it seems as though the issue of consumers not buying and consuming what they think is good for them comes from limited FDA and USDA regulations and extremely strong power held by large companies and the government. Referring back to the article Resisting Food Safety, Nestle states that “it should be evident that people involved with every stage of food production, from farm to fork, must take responsibility for food safety to prevent animal infections (producers), avoid fecal contamination (processors), and destroy food pathogens (handlers/consumers)”. She is ultimately saying that everyone blames each other for the issue of unsafe food. Nestle’s claim is that when it comes to food safety, billions of dollars are at stake, and industry, government, and consumers collide over different beliefs over interest in product value, economics and political power. She demonstrates how powerful food industries oppose safety regulations and deny accountability. Similarly, You Are What They Eat extends the idea because it talks about poor regulation monitoring. Companies are going to feed whatever they want to their animals, knowing they may get away with it, but then blame the consumer or deny the fault when something goes wrong. Companies will blame the consumers for improperly cooking their product, so it seems as if they are not at fault for someone getting food poisoning, for example E. coli. This issue cannot be blamed on consumers when new bacteria and diseases are arriving yearly.

The documentary Food Inc. is a good example of how the blame for unsafe food is also placed on someone else. Food Inc. questions the efficiency of the system of food production and regulation. In the documentary there is a story about a young boy named Kowalcyk of Colorado, who died in 2001 after developing hemolytic-uremic syndrome due to eating a hamburger contaminated with E. Coli. After Kevin’s death, Kevin’s Law was proposed which would give the United States Department of Agriculture the power to close down plants that produce contaminated meat. It took 4 years for this law to pass. The fact that it took this long for this law to pass goes to show how much power the food industry has over consumers, USDA, and the FDA. The company that is responsible for his death would not take the blame for the incident and it seemed as if the problem did not matter. In the documentary, Michael Pollan along with Nestle’s argument expresses that the industry is changing rapidly, creating more and more unsafe food. With their arguments, we should take away the fact that we just need to be more aware of where and what we buy from.

To go even further, the article GRAS Out: Surprising Number of Unregulated Chemicals Found in Food by Twilight Greenaway expresses how laws created by the USDA and FDA are intended to apply to common food ingredients like vinegar and vegetable oil. The laws allowed companies to consider certain foods “Generally recognized as safe”. This does not necessarily mean they are good for us. This fact also confirms that companies can get away with their own ways of production easier than we think. The FDA and USDA is very limited to telling companies how they should grow their food, which also coincide with an argument from Nestle’s article that the USDA and FDA have different responsibilities and only search for a limited amount of things when inspecting our food.

Labels, certification stamps, and prices are not always the best way to choose our foods. All they do is make their product seem the healthiest. They distract us from the hidden facts that their product may cause us to have future health risks or a product is produced at the lowest level of organic as possible while getting us to pay as much as possible. Should the FDA, USDA, and government allow this? As a consumer, it is important to do your own research if you wan to buy the best things for yourself. Yes, we need to be aware of what we are buying, but it is also up to the companies to do what it right and have interest in the consumer’s health while making their product. Until the FDA, USDA, and government begin to centralize their standards and regulation process, we will never be 100 percent sure about the production and safety of our food. Although this issue may seem insignificant, it will soon turn into a bigger problem once everything that appears to be healthy for us really isn’t and or hard earned money spent on “healthy foods turns into a complete waste.

Food politics is a very tricky system to understand. The main reason being there are many things that the food industry keeps hidden from the everyday consumer. There are many issues being raised regarding the safety of the foods we consume, the different consequences and benefits of different farming styles, and foodborne illnesses and what the government does to prevent them from happeneing. A lot of these issues fly under the radar and are seen as no big deal to a number of people out there, however it is important to know what is really going on in the food industry and the effects the food we eat may have on us physically and environmentally.

One issue I find as the mother of all the other issues in the food system, is the lack of transparency. The food system is often run by big brand producers who have control of certain areas of the system. The Documentary Food Inc., displays this for us by showing how there are a couple companies who run the meat industry, as well as companies who own the produce industry. The film specifically talks about a company called Monsanto, who is a chemical company who created a soybean that was resistant to a weed killer they created. This was a big deal because farmers could plant the seeds and then spray round up to kill all the weeds, leaving only the soy bean ready to go. Monsanto patened this seed and “by 2008 over 90% of sobeans in America contained Monsanto’s patened gene.”[1] Since this one company pretty much owns almost all of the soybean production, it is difficult for other farmers to get involved and produce their own seeds. Monsanto runs over all of the small farmers and businesses which gives them the power to share only what they want to share with the public. Often times people from the company refuse to be interviewed or answer questions regarding what they do. Also other farmers who are not even involved with Monsanto have to watch what they say because they could get sued. It is a big problem when big companies take over because it leads to increased secrecy within the food system.

This lack of knowledge about what goes on inside the food industry leads to other issues such as foodborne illnesses and concerns with how healthy the food we eat actually is for us. Consumer Reports came out with an article titled “We Are What They Eat”. It talks about what is in the feed of animals we consume daily such as cattle, chickens, and fish. It was found that some pretty repulsive things are added to the feeds of these animals. Cattle were given poultry litter, feces, feathers and waste from coops, chickens were fed meat and bone meal, and fish were fed meat, bone and feather meal. These ingredients were all approved by the FDA, however something could easily go wrong from something as simple as a storage mistake. The feed could become contaminated and go on to effect the animals who eat it, along with the people who eat the animals. This could lead to widespread diseases that could be found in many different human products. Marion Nestle, a nutrition, food studies, and public health professor at NYU, believes that there should be more government regulation in the food system. I agree with her stance completely and believe that it would resolve a lot of the issues that are present. A topic that Nestle focuses on is food borne illnesses. She says that people today consider food poisoning as an inconvenice rather than a serious issue. It is hard to find an accurate number of the cases of food poisoning in certain time frames, because a lot of times people do not report it. They are uncomfortable for a couple of days but do not think more of it to actually do something about it. However, when somebody does decide to take a stand, nobody in the food industry takes the blame. Each person who had contact with the food that caused the sickness whether it be the person who fed the animals, to the person who served the plate. Most times, the blame is put on the consumer. The idea of a company being associated with food poisoning can ruin so much for the business that instead of taking responsibility, they put the blame on whoever they can.

The government needs to be more involved in the regulation of foods to prevent foodborne illnesses from breaking out. Food Inc., tells a story about a family who was effected by E. Coli, and fatal bacteria that can be found in foods that were not cleaned properly. A little two year old boy who was completely healthy, passed away twelve days after eating a hamburger that was contaminated with E. Coli. When the mother tried to fight for what happened to her son, she did not get as little as an apology from anyone. The food system saw it as another casualty, while that family just lost their whole world. It is so important for people to understand how dangerous food can be when it is not properly cooked or produced. So many things can go wrong that can affect the lives of so many people. It is very disturbing that something so essential to our lives can come along with so many consequences.

[1] Food Inc

The main issue in food the food industry today is not whether we should buy organic or conventionally grown foods, but what type of production is best for the future generations to come and how the food we consume will determine the values and industries our country supports.

Throughout the past couple of decades there have been many concerns in the food industry. Consumers have become aware of the treatment and drugs given to the animals that they consume. There has not only been concern in the meat producing section of the food industry, but also in crop production. Farmers are beginning to mainly grow plants that have been genetically modified. This concern stems from people not knowing how these more recent styles of food production affect their health.

In many cases the food industry is abusing the power to produce food. Much of this industry is focused solely on profit and will obtain by making production as cheap as possible, while abiding by all the regulations. Many consumer would think as long as they follow regulations everything will be fine, but what consumers do not know is how loose the regulations and how they are barely being enforced.

Marion Nestle once explained that food producers do not have to recall unsafe foods, but they do because the want the consumer to feel safe buying their product. She connects this with the lack of regulation enactment and enforcement in the FDA and USDA. These government organizations are supposed to be protecting the consumer, but as the filmFood Inc. demonstrated many of the officials appointed to these organizations have been linked to major establishments in the food industry. As a government agency created to protect this country from hazardous food, all they have been successful of is maintaining the industries safety.

Some of the regulations in affect today have only helped the food system become stronger. In meat production the products that are approved to be used in animal feed have grown. According to the article “You are what they” the industry is now allowed to use animal waste, protein products, meat, bone, and blood. These are only ingredients that can be added to animal feed. This does not only seem disgusting, but it is also allowing animals that have been deemed insufficient for human consumption to be used in creating products for animals which will eventually be consumed by the population.

The changes in the animal feed are harmful for the animal’s diet. Today, more animals have been taken off their natural diets and instead have been given feed. The film Food Inc. demonstrated how this could be a problem, but what I find most concerning is that in some cases this new diet can be linked to increases in harmful bacteria. Due to the rising outbreaks recently, any link should be further analyzed.

Many food producers do not only modify the animals’ diet from grass to make production cheaper, but they also administer drugs and antibiotics to create larger animals and to protect against disease. When these companies administer these drugs, they are creating alterations within the way these animals grow. For instance chickens have been given drugs to increase their size and to decrease the amount of time they take to grow. The documentary Food Inc. demonstrated how chickens were dying prematurely and how many of them could not move due to the increase in body size. This is not the only problem. Also, chickens are being given antibiotics in their feed. This is causing them to become resistant to antibiotics and this could make consuming something as common as chicken dangerous for the population. Although many producers and government program swear that everything is safe, consumers still have to question which type of diet they want the animals they eat to have. We have to realize that everything eaten and administered to animals will be carried into our diets when we consume them.

The argument presented so far makes it seem like there is a clear choice as to which foods should be consumed, but the real answer is much more complicated. Over the years the food system has been developed because many people believe it is more “sustainable”.

“Sustainable” is a funny word that has a variety of meanings, especially when it is applied to the food system. We need to work for a “sustainable” future or we need a “sustainable” of farming that will produce enough food for the country. It seems like everyone is searching for their own form of sustainable and this is where the argument over food production can get difficult.

One view which can be represented by sources such as Food Inc., “You are What They”, and “Resisting Food Safety”. These articles offer that the word “sustainable” when being discussed with the current food system is based on creating food that will not demolish the societies overall health. This focuses in on the issues of administering drugs to meat, raising animals in warehouses, and using genetically modified plants. They are right in the fact that each of these factors has repercussions on society. The main concern with the word “sustainable” in this context is that people will become resistant to antibiotics and outbreaks of various bacteria will occur. This is a major concern with the increase in outbreaks related to food borne illnesses lately.

The other main definition for “sustainable” in this context can be represented by the article “Organic Illusions”. This article offers the idea of “sustainable” as being able to support thousands of people on the current food system. This article’s approach suggests that without the mass production that is offered by the current food system, society would not be able to have enough food to survive because there is not enough resources to run an organic food system on this large of a scale. This form of “sustainability” is being formed to protect a society from running out of a food supply.

The word “sustainability” used in different contexts can create a more controversial argument about food politics. There is no easy solution that can be made, but there is common ground that can be acquired on both sides of the issue.

Each of these arguments presented can only represent a glimpse at the errors and concerning facts about the current food system being used in today’s society. What the food industry does not want the consumer to know is that they actually have power in how the food industry can change. The consumer has the power to make purchases and to choose what type of production they support. As the consumer it is our job to purchase products that we can stand behind and be confident in saying I support the food I eat. By doing this the consumer can change the food market entirely, because the one thing that the system is focusing on is making a profit.

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 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 does not seem to be on our side of the argument on what we should eat.

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 no where 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. Plants don’t respond by growing better if the farmer is local, and pigs don’t care much about the methods used in the production of their daily ration. If those inputs that animals and plants require to grow are present, plants and animals respond in pretty similar ways. 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 people like Nestle, who believe that “The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture affects foodbourne 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 foodborne 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.” If we can’t trust our government, who can we trust?

In the grainy video of his deposition with the Monsanto lawyers, the farmer hunches over the desk in front of him and intermittently reaches a weathered hand to rub his downcast forehead. His posture emulates defeat and heartbreak. In the documentary, Food Inc., Monsanto is suing Moe Parr for cleaning his own soybean seed and “inducing farmers to break the patent law.”

“This essentially puts me out of business. I am finished,” Parr says.

This anecdote illustrates the control that multinational corporations, like Monsanto, maintain over the farming industry. Their clout and reach is so pervasive and powerful that they can destroy a farmer’s life with a litany of charges completely detached from reality. Parr was forced to settle out of court because he could not afford his legal bills.

“I can remember when the first prohibitions against seed saving came into being. Most farmers were just absolutely disgusted with the whole concept. It’s been interesting over the course of 11 years to watch us go from utter contempt for the notion that we can’t save our own seed to acceptance,” says Troy Roush, Vice President of American Corn Growers Association, in an interview in the documentary.

For years, debates over food production and regulation in America have drifted into the national conversation. Arguments defending or condemning conventional farming processes and organic alternatives have been presented in documentaries, op-eds, studies, articles and books. Repeatedly, critics of conventional farming have deconstructed the process while highlighting the safety oversights and the environments created, which appear conducive to food contamination and systemic spread of food-related illnesses. Outbreaks of E. coli, semolina and listeria have claimed headlines and stolen lives. But parallel to discussions over the nutritional value and health risks of mass-produced food, the exploitation of the farmers and laborers involved in the farming industry is another jarring facet of this issue.

The corporations that form the industrial food system exploit theirs workers, as is evident in the working conditions, wages and bullying of farmers and laborers. These corporations are in positions of great power in determining the structure of farming and they repeatedly prove irresponsible with health and safety measures while solely perseverating on their own profit. They can introduce new methods or products that may risk the safety of people and animals, but have the influence to silence pushback from farmers and even government agencies. Corruption between food corporations and government agencies (specifically the personal overlap between those two realms) may be the reason why government agencies, like the FDA, are often willing to bend to the will of corporations.

Large corporations often employ illegal immigrants, a demographic unlikely to vie for better working conditions or wages. Marion Nestle mention in her book that the industry strategically employs larger numbers of immigrants and teenagers, forming an employee demographic less likely to know their rights and more willing to endure minimum wages with no benefits or chances for pay raises. And as is clearly evident in multiple narratives presented Food Inc., large corporations also monitor and control farmers and farm owners. These corporations, with money and connections, are able to change the culture of farming and determine the direction of farmers’ livelihoods.

The documentary Food Inc. emphasizes the ways in which conventional farming exploits both people and animals. The interviews in the documentary with farmers who are buried under debt to large corporations, such as Perdue and Tyson, reveal how the wealth being amassed from food production in the States does not trickle down to the farmers or labors but merely feeds into a larger divide between the rich and poor in America. One chicken farmer in the film, Vince Edwards was told by Tyson that he was not allowed to show his own chicken coup to the documentarians. A jolly and portly Edwards shrugs and grins sheepishly. He doesn’t know why he can’t show the camera crew. But that’s what he has been told. Moments like this illustrate the reach and of these corporations’ power and influence.

However, in his article, “Organics Illusions,” Blake Hurst argued from a stance framing conventional farming practices as almost liberating for participants in its workforce, as opposed to repressive or dangerous. As an actual farmer, he believes modern farming methods actually present many benefits to farm owners and laborers and make their livelihoods and jobs easier and more efficient. Hurst says, “Those of us who grew up with a hoe in our hand have absolutely no nostalgia for days gone by. People love to talk about traditional agriculture, but I’ve noticed that their willingness to embrace the land is often mostly metaphorical.” Hurst harkens back to the olden days emphasizing that conditions today are less physically draining and demand less labor.

Hurst also states in his article that since conventional farming requires fewer workers, the people who would be slaving away in fields, if the world was without pesticides and slaughterhouses, now have more time and space to become playwrights and philosophers and doctors. But in her book, “Resisting Food Safety,” the aforementioned author, Marion Nestle, presents information that dulls the romanticism Hurst paints. Nestle touches on the socioeconomics of the food industry and discussed how corporations hire mostly immigrants and teenagers at meager wages and often in unsafe conditions. And while unemployment has almost returned to pre-Great Recession rates, jobs are always welcomed in the States. But instead of providing jobs and bettering the American economy, some corporations are employing illegal immigrants. Food Inc. showed a corporation that had a constructed a deal with local authorities to only arrest a handful of their illegal immigrants every week so as not to disrupt the flow of production at their factories. Conditions in slaughterhouses are also reported as some of the most dangerous working condition and can be emotionally disruptive. So although fewer people may be hoeing potato fields right now, many are being exploited and abused by corporations.

Food Inc. also reveals the conditions that animals are kept in. Conditions that some argue are cruel and heinous. Scenes in that documentary shows bloated chickens pumped up on drugs to fatten them and increase the corporation’s profit. Their bulging bodies cannot be supported by their spindly legs so their short lives are mostly sedentary. Some corporations require that the chickens be kept in huts that are completely enclosed. Although Edwards refused to show the camera crew the conditions of his chickens, another chicken farmer, Carole Morison, said she felt compelled to speak on the topic despite the repercussions. She told the documentarians she thought current conditions for chickens were inhuman. Further, she refused to enclose her own coup. The film reported that her contract with Perdue was later voided for her actions.

In a Consumer Reports article analyzing conventional farming methods and how there is contamination and oversight in that process, some of the potential sicknesses animals can contract were listed. The article read, “Regulatory loopholes 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.” This litany of health risks present to animals (and humans that consume them) points to these procedures not being the healthiest and most humane means to farm these animals. These diseases paint a picture of the conditions these animals are kept in as clearly insufficient. Instead of healthy animals being raised and slaughtered in humane and clean ways, they appear to be produced in conditions that are instead conducive to them harboring diseases.

Matt Nolan

Critical research

Draft 2/20

What is in jeopardy with the way that the American food system is being run today? The food industry is corrupted by big companies that are thirsty for money, forcing farmers to use GMO’s and specific feeds/farming techniques. Most of these things are bad for animals, humans, and the environment. The government(FDA,USDA) needs to do a better job at regulating and enforcing their rules on these techniques/practices. Is there a way to fix all of this and have a healthier food system for all of America or will we keep going down the same path?

Large companies have taken over the American food system single handedly in their desire to make the most money possible. They have power and control over farmers by paying them good money to do what they want them to. If the farmer wanted to leave and be out on his own he would most likely go out of business due to all of the surrounding farmers working for the company that they once did. We see this in the video “Food Inc.” where the farmers talk about how they are controlled like puppets. Companies also make seed deals and if you store the seeds or try and sell them you will have a lawsuit coming your way.  The feed that they force their farmers to feed their animals is mostly GMO’s and other parts of chopped up animals. On top of all of this, most of the government and people above the big companies have money invested in them. This makes it almost impossible to change how things are happening now.

The things stated above are bad for America, consumers, animals, and even the environment. How? There are many studies that have been performed to prove this. Many of what is in the animals feed is very disgusting. That means that consumers are eating those animals that grew up eating that feed. “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”(CR Pg.26).Workers are being mistreated in many of the facilities across America. GMO’s are in a ton of the foods that are being sold to consumers. As it says in the article GMO pig feed “Currently, no GE safety testing is required in the U.S. The long-term study revealed that pigs fed a GE diet suffered higher rates of severe stomach inflammation…”. Pesticides and animal waste is being spread into the environment polluting waters that all life drinks on a daily bases.

The government, USDA, and FDA are not doing their jobs to overlook the food industry and protect animals and humans. For example Nestle says that they have a lack of funding and manpower to do the job and keep up with the growing food system. Which leads to a lack of oversight and practices are twisted and there is more room for error which leads to food borne illness and other things. About 80% of seafood in the United States is imported and the FDA tests only about 2% according to consumer reports. That is a ridiculously low percentage to be testing on all imports that could contain toxins and bacteria that could harm consumers. The FDA and USDA need to find a way to get more funding to keep up with the changes in the food system for the good of the consumers.

There are ways to fix this mess that is going on with the food system in the United States. But no one can seem to agree and blames everyone els for the problems. As Nestle says, the government(FDA,USDA) blames the corporations/companies, which blame the consumers and vice versa. Once we get over that we can start breaking down how to solve this problem. As seen in the video “Food Inc.” one farmer did everything the natural way. For example the cows were in a field, ate the grass, and went to the bathroom and the cycle continued. “If the animals were on a grass diet would eliminate 75% of E coli in gut”(Food Inc.).If this was done throughout the US there would be less talk about feed and what environment that the animals lived in. Taking away the big companies that control everything would be another good idea. If food was bought locally that decreases the chances for bacteria and other things to grow with the less time that it is processed, shipped, and stored. Though some would disagree with this hypothesis like Blake Hurst. Hurst talking about a study done at Stanford disagrees “When a study finds no differences in nutritional value after 70 years of hybrid seeds, 60 years of chemical fertilizers, a half century of synthetic pesticide application, and almost two decades of GM seed, its a problem for the narrative of the organic industry”. This is definitely worth looking into but there would need to be more studies done since so many people would be for a more organic old fashioned way of farming.

How will the American food system be in 50 years? No one knows but the way that it is going with corruption starting at the top with companies and government and the bad practices who knows. Hopefully people will start to look into what goes on behind the scenes and what they are actually eating and try to make a change. People need to start being more informed about what they are putting into their body and not being persuaded by company ads and other things. All of there articles bring up great points about what is wrong and what is not wrong with the food system. As it will take a ton of consumers and people that want to do the right thing to make a change for the good of the American food system.