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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

There are many players in the industrial farming industry. But maybe there are not as many as there used to be. As little as 40 years ago the top five beef packers controlled about 25% of the market. Today, the top four control over 80% of the same market. As shown in Food, Inc. there were thousands of functioning slaughterhouses. Today there are only 13 in the United States. Perhaps one of the largest players in the food industry would be Monsanto, who back in the 1950s was a chemical company that produced things like DDT and agent orange. Robert Kenner, director of Food, Inc., believes that large corporations such as Monsanto have created a monopoly on the majority of the food industry in the United States. Because of this, regulations and food safety have become secondary to the bottom line of these corporations and people, like Tom Roush who was sued by Monsanto because of patent infringement, are suffering because of it.

These large scale agriculture corporations are able to control regulations through lobbying the government. As Mariam Nestle said in her book “Resisting Food Safety,” there has been a “historic closeness of working relationships among congressional agriculture committees, federal regulatory agencies, and food producers.” As we saw in the Bush administration the head of the FDA, Lester M. Crawford Jr., was also the former executive VP of the National Food Processors Association and the chief of staff at the USDA, James F. Fitzgerald, was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington. With all the food borne illness in the United States you would think that Congress or the federal government would intervene at some point. However there are people like David Bossman, recent CEO of the American Feed Industry Association, who argued to congress that “… you can eat meat with confidence not only because it is safe, but it is getting safer with all the things that industry is doing.” Notice that he did not say what the government was doing to make meat safer but what the industry was doing. Consumer Reports would argue in “You Are What They Eat,” that the lack of regulation within this industry is what has created this major problem within our feed stock. They argue that the antibiotics we feed animals and the actual feed both pose major health risks to the American people especially if there is no one to regulate it.

In 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164. One might be able to argue that this decrease in the number of federal safety inspections would lead to a higher incidence of outbreak of major food borne illnesses like salmonella and E. coli 0157h7. The USDA once was able to test for those types of bacteria in processing plants and if a facility repeatedly failed tests the government had the authority to shut it down. That is until meat and poultry associations sued the government and the USDA lost that power. In the article by Consumer reports, people like Carol Tucker-Foreman, argue “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be, and the FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking then reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk. It is also argued that these major food industries have condensed living conditions for animals and have huge processing plants for meat which increase their risk for viruses, diseases and cross contamination. The largest in the world, in Tar Heel, N.C, is Smithfield Hog Processing Plant where approximately 32,000 hogs are killed every day. This increased risk of infection and disease leads conventional farms to imbed antibiotics within the chicken or cow feed to reduce this risk. The conditions that are described are the same as the conditions represented in Food Inc,. Carol Doberstein lost her contract with a major chicken distributor because she refused to create a completely blacked out environment for her chickens. Another farmer described in Food Inc. was Paul Salitin who displayed his methods of farming to far less likely to have any incidents of food borne illness despite his open air work environment. Maybe his methodology of wholesome organic foods and food processing is the way to go.

People like Blake Hurst would disagree with this idea of what organic farming is. In his article “Organic Illusions” he cites a study by Stanford that concludes the idea of organic farming is not actually safer nor is there any extra nutritional value to be gained from it. He says that there was actually a higher percentage of E. coli in organic foods than in conventionally farmed foods. He does not think the idea of organic farming is based in science saying “we are not having a debate over science, because that science is settled. We’re having a debate about processes, narratives, and good intentions, and maybe even about style.” He believes in telling a story. And in his article he is trying to portray organics as a phase and something that is unrealistic to the average farmer. It is interesting that at the beginning of his article he acknowledges that Stanford, the only source he uses, has actually received large donations from Cargill, who is a major food company that ranked 12 on the Fortune 500.

In every day life, we eat around three meals a day, and how often can we say that we truly have thought about how our food was produced or how the process was regulated? Most people don’t consider where their food comes from or who looks over it and that is a problem. Food borne illness kill around 5,000 people a year. That is just the number of casualties, the number of people effected by food born illness is around 76 million, which is serious number. There are handful of government agencies that look over the United State’s food production. The two primary agencies being the USDA and the FDA. Both agencies look over some of the same areas, however, they also regulate different aspects. In “ Resisting Food Safety” by Marion Nestle some of these guidelines are described. Nestle states that the FDA regulates: “ All foods (except meat, poultry, and processed eggs), they do regulate animal drugs and feeds” (Nestle, Pg56) The article also states the USDA’s regulations as: “ Meat, poultry, processed eggs, safety of eggs, egg products, inspects corn, fruits, vegetables, protects animals and plants from disease, and conducts research on food safety.”(Nestle, g56) The USDA regulates much more because there are various branches found inside of the USDA such as the FSIS, AMS, GIPSA, APHIS, and ARS. Even though the FDA and USDA are separate agencies, there is a very thin line between what they regulate. That statement sounds confusing  but Nestle provides good examples to support how feeble and vague the guidelines are. Nestle shows a graph that describes the regulations as: “ The USDA regulates hot dogs in pastry roll, and the FDA regulates Hot dogs in rolls. The USDA regulates soups with more than 2% meat and poultry, and the FDA regulates soups with less than 2% of meat and poultry. The USDA regulates corn dogs, the FDA regulates bagel dogs.” (Nestle, pG 57) These regulations are unlikely to be dangerous, however, it shows how 1% too much of meat and poultry can change the jurisdiction of the inspection which involves a terrifying amount of complexity and it seems highly unnecessary. To make things even worse, the USDA has only 7,000 inspectors that regulate 6,000 meat, poultry, an egg establishments and 130 importers. These importers slaughter hundreds of millions of animals and produce billions of pounds of meat that needs to be inspected by the scrawny team of 7,000. Another figure to prove how insanely low the USDA’s number of employees is fall in the poultry plants. The poultry plants slaughter 90 birds per minute meaning that every USDA inspector needs to inspect a staggering 35 birds per minute. How on earth is someone expected to check an entire bird in less than 2 seconds? Its absolutely absurd to say the least. It is hard to believe but the FDA’s demands are worse. The FDA has only 700 employees that inspect 30,000 food manufacturers, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 food establishments and 1.5 million vending operations. If one were to calculate with the vending operations alone it would lead to every inspector having to check 2,142 vending operations alone without any other aspects of the FDA’s responsibilities involved. These numbers are not only unreasonable but impossible. These kinds of figures lead people to ask why we have so few employees regulating something so important. These agencies are in charge of the safety of the American people in terms of the food that they consume and the fact that the two most important divisions have less than 8,000 employees is completely disgusting. For a matter as serious as the health of hundreds of millions there should be at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of employees regulating our safety in the food industry. The problem of food safety grows even deeper when it comes to the employees working in the processing plants. In “Resisting Food Safety” Nestle discusses a statement from Eric Schlosser, one of the head producers of Food Inc. by stating: “Much of the actual work in the food industry—in agriculture, slaughterhouses, processing plants, and places where food is served—is carried out by immigrants, teenager, and other groups payed at minimum wage. (Nestle, Pg 31) This statement is very concerning and in Food Inc.(Produced by Eric Schlosser provider of info for the previous quote), a documentary on the food industry, the topic of immigrant workers in the meat industry is brought up. At Smithfield, one of the nations leading meat producers, thousands of immigrants are hired a year to work on the production line. The immigration of these people started in response to 1.5 Mexican million farmers being put out of work in due to the drug wars and Mexicans realizing that farming wouldn’t support their families because of a lacking flow of income.  These workers are brought to the US to work for these huge corporations and the only way to stay here is if they maintain these jobs. Their families, healthcare, and housing all rely on their jobs and the corporations hiring them know that and will exploit them because of it. A Smithfield worker was quoted in Food Inc saying: “The people at Smithfield know you cant live without the job so they hold it over you.” (Smithfield Worker, Food Inc.) These major companies give these people an ultimatum with only one outcome and thats to work for them or lose everything. Corporations like Smithfield also have very disturbing standards when it comes to immigration. To start off, immigration is illegal, however, these corporations still immigrate workers in to the United Sates. To make it worse, these companies also sign deals with The Department of Immigration to deport a set number of employees daily by giving them addresses and names. For example, Smithfield deports 15 employees a day. These double standards are unethical and wrong without a doubt but the real question is why aren’t agencies such as the USDA or FDA doing anything about it? How are they allowing illegal immigration and even worse, how are they letting these immigrants handle our food? This whole system is very corrupt. In Food Inc. Eric Schlosser articulates: “ Government turned a blind eye on companies bringing in immigrants.”( Eric Schlosser, Food Inc.) We are not completely sure why the government does this, maybe it has to do with the amount of power that these corporations have and it also might have to do with the fact that these workers can be exploited and payed little to no money, nevertheless, it’s still messed up. Immigration is a very sticky situation and it needs to be cleaned up for the sake of the people being exploited, and for the health of the American people because of the responsibility that these corporations place on these immigrants to handle and process our food. Another problem observed with agencies such as the FDA, is their lack of enforcement and quickness. In “You are what they eat” by Consumer Reports, Fred Angulo, chief of the CDC’s food borne and diarrheal branch is quoted saying: “ It would help to gave a “farm to fork” surveillance system such as those in Europe that looks for contamination in feed, animals, the marketplace, and humans.” (Fred Angulo, You are what they eat, pg.28) This would require a system for feed processing that would be very similar to animal processing with built in procedures to prevent contamination. Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine says: “the agency is engaged in the discussion with the feed industry” (Sundlof, You are what they eat, pg 28) An FDA spokeswoman at the time added to that by calling the system a “priority, but it may not be fully implemented until 2007.” (FDA spokeswoman, You are what they eat, pg28) This issue was published in 2005, meaning that the system would be put into place  2 full years later. If this system is working so well in other continents and if it’s a so called “priority” then the system should be in place within months. In Food Inc. we also see a lack of urgency with the case of 2 year old Kevin. In Food Inc. a young boy named Kevin was killed by E-Coli at the age of 2 by eating tainted processed meat. The story is utterly heartbreaking but the part that stuck out to me was the way that the FDA handled the situation. Kevin had already died, leaving his family in agony and after tons of complaints and yelling out, the FDA called a voluntary recall after 16 days. This product not only took the life of a young boy but it was also able to run rampant around the country infecting more and more people for over 2 whole weeks. Kevin’s mother explained in the film that she wanted nobody else to go through what her family had to and that’s why they begged that the FDA call for a recall. It appears that the FDA has the ideas and tools that they need to create change for the health of the American people but they don’t enforce these changes in a timely manner leaving more people vulnerable to food borne illnesses such as E-Coli that killed baby Kevin at the young age of 2. There obviously needs to be reform and it needs to be done soon.

With a food supply system completely motivated by profits, consumers are suffering adverse health effects in the interests of higher profits.  Oversight is overwhelmed and ineffective.  With these two major problems facing our population, a drastic change is needed.  Supply should be nationalized and oversight privatized.

It seems like every day there is a new article somewhere on the internet about our food.  It is a topic of the utmost importance to all of us.  It seems, however, that most of us live under the veil that Big Food has pulled over our eyes, shielding themselves from being exposed.  They are the wizard behind the curtain.  But unlike Alice’s wizard, this one has no concern for us.  They have done a great job separating the consumer from the supply.  And it is a smart business decision.  When a consumer goes to the grocery store, they see great packaging.  Unfortunately, the packaging is not reflective of that which lies within.  As Michael Pollen says in Food Inc: “There are no seasons in the American supermarket. Now there are tomatoes all year round, grown halfway around the world, picked when it was green, and ripened with ethylene gas. Although it looks like a tomato, it’s kind of a notional tomato. I mean, it’s the idea of a tomato.”

The biggest threat that the consumer faces is in the meat.  Here are just a few problems with our livestock.  1) Cows are fed corn to fatten them, which works, but causes them to retain harmful and even deadly bacteria in their bowls.  This can be avoided by feeding them grass, as they were intended to eat.  But there is less profit in that.  2) The animals are slaughtered in such quantity that the contents of the bowls are sometimes released into the eatable meat supply.  3) Shortcuts are taken in order to minimize the risks, such as treating the potentially infected meat with ammonia.  4) Some poultry feeds contain antibiotics and cancer causing arsenic.  5) Farm raised fish are fed with feed caught in polluted waters that contain cancer causing dioxins and PCBs.  Most consumers don’t know these things occur, and it turns out they don’t even wat to know.  But it’s having negative health impacts on our population.  We are growing ever more resistant to antibiotics.  There are links to cancer and other serious illnesses.  And as our population grows unhealthier, the supply companies grow richer.

Robert Kenner, the creator of Food Inc, attempted to change the market by placing more of a demand on organic foods.  Unfortunately that documentary was not seen by enough people. Consumers still live under the veil.  The only way to fix this problem is to nationalize the supply system.  It is a drastic step, but these are desperate times.  Do you really trust Monsanto with the health of your children?  When a company’s primary concern is the bottom line, they will do whatever is necessary to ensure profits.  There are ethical questions that arise as we give the food corporations this much power.  “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?”- Joe Salatin.

Put government in charge of supplying the food.  They can make the health of the population their primary concern, and not profits.  They would have to take over the feed supply as well.   Rather than having “The goal: to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible,” it would be to nourish the animals appropriately to eventually nourish our population.  “There needs to be rigorous analysis of the health impact of what’s fed to food animals.” Additionally the government might even look after the environment.

We do not have to abandon the new technologies we have applied toward farming practices.  Blake Hurst seems to think that efficient farming and environmental consciousness seem to be mutually exclusive.  “The organic farming narrative depends on the belief that conventional farming sacrifices the present for the future…Those of us who grew up with a hoe in our hand have absolutely no nostalgia for days gone by.”

Overseeing the process of supplying the food has been proven a huge failure.  Marion Nestle almost comically points out in her about food safety.  “Even with the best of intentions, it would be difficult to keep up with food safety problems given the chances in the U.S. food system since 1906.  USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry and egg establishments-and 130 importers-that slaughter and process 89 million pigs, 37 million cattle and 7 billion chickens and turkeys, not to mention the 25 billion pounds of beef and 7 billion pounds of ground beef each year…The demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable.  About 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 10,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations.”

Leave the oversight to private business.  They can get paid per item.  It is no secret that private businesses have done very well with government contracts.  Having full transparency would be a good thing for the consumer.  There could be a whole new industry created, responsible for overseeing the safety of the population’s food supply.  As far as the economics of it are concerned, instead of the production companies earning huge profits at the cost of the health of our population, those profits would be rolled into the oversight side.  The prices will stay the same but the product will improve.  The more oversight, the more profitable the oversight company will be and the healthier the population will be.  The logic is there.

These are desperate times.  And desperate times call for desperate measures.  Are we going to continue with the status quo, lining the pockets of a few fat cats?  Or are we going to make a change?  Make the population healthier by changing to motivation of the supply side from profit to health.