Food regulatory agencies cannot fully inspect all the meats and produce we come in contact with this is due to the overall scale of our food systems and because of government lack funding. The articles we read in class have shown that our food regulatory agencies are not on top of inspecting our food systems for illnesses and sanitation. “Resisting Food Safety” by Nestle brings up the important note that there are “700 FDA inspectors are in charge of overseeing 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishment, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores and 1.5 million vending operations.” This quote shows that the FDA has a limited number of inspectors that are forced to inspect more than they can handle which results in these out breaks of foodborne illness because not ever meat or produce is inspected properly.  The articles show us the hidden truths of what really happens to the food we eat as it goes through the processes between farm to fork. Food Inc., “Resisting Food Safety,” and “You Are What They Eat” focus mainly on the hidden truths of our food system such as the poor living condition and the diseases that the farm animals can get. Organic Illusions” discusses more of the conventional vs organic argument but also discusses some of the unhealthy aspects of organic foods such as having to use more pesticides and having a higher risk for e coli.  All of them show what the food systems can get away with.

The articles all discuss the inner workings of the food system. They give us a closer look into where our food starts off at to the many processes it goes through before ending up on our plates. More specifically the articles and movie point to all the negative points of the food system. Examples include the poor health conditions chickens are grown in to the possibly cannibalistic food feed to cows. The movie Food Inc. showed that chickens are grown at a rate so fast their bones and organs cannot keep up with them. The chickens in the movie could barely take a few steps before their legs gave way. The article “You Are What They Eat” mentions that there is no regulation on animal feed so it is alright if meat scraps from chickens or pigs are in feed for cows to eat.  The argument of conventional vs organic foods are also brought up by the articles. Conventional means the animals and produce are grown by using standard farming methods. Organic means the produce seeds are GMOs that help bring out desirable traits in the produce such as being resistant to herbicide or pesticides and making them contains vitamins and nutrients that produce would not normally contain so it is “healthier” to us.  The article “Organic Illusions” by Blake Hurst in particular discusses the argument that conventional foods are just as good as organic foods.  “Organic Illusions” discusses more of the conventional vs organic argument but also brings up some details about organic foods having higher e coli content than conventional foods. The use of pesticide is also brought up in “Organic Illusions” with the article saying that much more pesticides are used on organically grown foods. The pesticides used are organic and not as strong as inorganic pesticides, as a result more has to be used to get the same effect. This leads to the produce also having higher pesticide content. These all show what happens to the food we eat before we get it. This also shows what the food system can get away with due to the lack of regulations.

The FDAs lack of inspectors is due to people who support these big faming industries hold office in the government. Food Inc. brought up the example of Monsanto. Monsanto is huge company that makes seeds, herbicides, and pesticides. Monsanto has supporters that hold seats in office and as a result can do things that other farming companies cannot. In the movie Monsanto bullied and sued farmers that did not stick there their strict guidelines about what they could and could not due with the products they were given. The movie also showed that Monsanto kept a private list that contained all the names of the farmers that did anything Monsanto did not like such as reusing seeds the next year or not throwing away all ungrown seeds at the end of the harvest.

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.

All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more powerful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations. After reading the texts, there were several issues prevalent throughout all of the texts. The topic of government regulation over the food industry was touched upon briefly in almost every reading.

Each text observed and commented on the over the actions and lack of actions on behalf of organizations such as the FDA and the USDA. The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat article inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  It also provides the current narrative between industry and concerned officials. Highlighted in the article is the inclusion of waste and antibiotics in the feed of farm animals such as cows and chickens. The article states that the appropriate organizations do have oversight and final approval over feed ingredients. Yet even officials in the food industry are aware of the potential for the feed to still become contaminated in several parts of the process. The question Consumer Reports raises is whether the rules surrounding food supply are strong enough, and whether or not government enforcement is expansive enough. “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be and FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality” (Consumer Reports, 27) Another of the text’s observations was that certain health labels and claims on food are unverified, I wish to add that this is another power of the food industry over consumers. Consumers are disadvantage by not knowing where there food comes from or how it is prepared and must trust labeling.

As a readers and food consumers, we naturally wonder why the government would be so negligent in this area. The investigations conducted in the film Food Inc. does the work of providing some answers. The directors and producers perform investigative work into every aspect of food production in an attempt to pull back the veil over food industry practices. Eric Schlosser, the author and co-producer, explains that “For years during the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington; the head of the F.D.A. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies that they’re supposed to be scrutinizing”. (Food Inc.) This is possible because only a handful of companies control the food system. This is a significant trend because it illuminates how the amassing economic power of food corporations is being transformed into political power further tipping the balance of influence away from the government.

Marion Nestle in her article Resisting Food Safety argues that food safety rules and regulations are outdated.  Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, she attempts to provide and authoritative insight into the inner workings of regulatory agencies.  She provides the facts and statistical details as to why the actions of regulatory agencies are so limited. She insists that there is more protection for producers than public, and explains why it is difficult to connect foodborne illness to production. “If anything the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable…The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was…minuscule by any standard of federal expenditure”. (Nestle, 59) The arguments made by Nestle about the daunting tasks provided to food regulation organizations stood out to me. Extending the text’s observation that regulatory government agencies are more concerned about vying for resources and jurisdiction than public safety, I wish to add that the dilution of their responsibilities contributes to the dilution of their power. It is this environment that influences the behavior noted by Nestle.

One of the risks associated with lax government regulation is obviously foodborne illness. This issue is framed by power as well. As the current system is constructed all the texts seem to point to the fact that consumers, the industry and the government are all disadvantaged in their attempts to prevent foodborne illness, which is cause for concern. Food Inc. employs a strong emotional rhetoric when addressing the issue. The inclusion of Barb Kowalcky’s story regarding her son Kevin emphasizes the dangers of foodborne illness in a way that effectively hits home. On screen Ms. Kowalcky explains how her son developed hemolytic-uremic syndrome in reaction to contaminated hamburger meat. The most alarming part of the story for me is the legislation that followed. Kevin’s Law, passed after his 2001 death, gives the USDA the power to close down plants with contaminated meat. What was alarming to me was that the government didn’t already reserve this power and that it took death and years of lobbying for them to assume this power. Ms. Kowalcky explains ““It took us almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that we matched a meat recall”. The Kowalcky family was powerless to prevent their son from eating the tainted meat. The industry lacked significant power to identify and contain the contaminated food, and the until Kevin’s law the government lacked the power to shut down production of contaminated meat.

The Consumer Reports article is characterized by explaining the source and risk of two major foodborne illness. It cites how infectious prions in beef feed can lead to mad cow disease in humans and antibiotics in chicken feed can expose people to arsenic. Yet, even though the sources of the diseases are known preventative efforts are still hampered. “The FDA is aware of a handful of incidents worldwide in which salmonella infections in humans were linked to animal feed… connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult” (Consumer Reports, 28). Extending the text’s observation about the difficulty linking feed ingredients to foodborne illness, I wish to add that the dangerous aspect of this issue is that the industry again reigns superior and influence. If it is difficult to link the ingredients known to have potential for harm to actual outbreaks, it is easier to defend their inclusion.

Nestle’s article being more factual and educational in nature highlights the general difficulties of identifying the source of foodborne illness and why it poses such a threat. She notes “most episodes of food poisoning are not very serious… it is difficult to collect accurate information about the number of cases and their severity”. (Nestle, 37) She is also able to tangibly clarify what I have observed as prioritizing of economic interests over public safety.  Nestle provides data showing foodborne illness presents a multi-million dollar cost to the industry in the form of recalls and loss of reputation. I similarly hold one of the text’s position that consumers do share some of the responsibility in issues of food safety.  This was a perspective touched on in all articles in fact. Food Inc., tries through rhetorical exercise to emphasize the power consumers have by selective spending when it comes to food. Consumer Reports urges people to utilize their local means of political influence to affect change by signing petitions and such. Yet, as Nestle observes the blame and responsibility is shared equally between producers, consumers, and regulatory agencies. Although, revisiting these issues of food through the framework of power, it becomes clear that power is concentrated in the industry. Therefore, so should the responsibility and accountability for food safety.

Corruption is a funny thing. Anyone or anything can become corrupt based on the actions the person or thing chooses to practice. 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. 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 meat that is sold every day in our local grocery stores. These illnesses are the result of the unsanitary facilities that are used to raise and prepare these animals for slaughter. The reason for this is that there is not any regulation governing over these facilities making sure these products are not contaminated. Government programs like the FDA, USDA, and CDC are supposed to watch over these 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 meat. 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 if there are certain health and safety violations that are found in these processing plants, usually if the farm is owned by one of the large corporations, the heads of the corporations always have a friend on the inside of the FDA to help them get out of it. 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.

While the food industry has become a highly standardized process, as shown in Food Inc., efficiency for the manufacturers may not be the key to satisfying the health and safety of consumers. Our consumers lack the power to ensure that the products they are buying are free from harmful bacteria and disease, this is due to the lack of power that we as consumers have on the regulation of our products. Our government agencies are also being controlled by the big manufacturers and their money, making it a difficult task to provide a more valid regulation process. The film Food Inc. provides the viewer with a vast array of evidence behind the numerous issues that are at stake in this debate. Food safety for consumers may be at the top of the list, but it is the issues of power, money, and lack of the consumers and even the government’s ability to regulate the food process.

Food Inc. puts the power of emotion to use by displaying some of these issues in the documentary. The film’s aim is to show what’s, “behind the veil of corporate farming,” and it does so by providing the viewer with powerful evidence that demonstrates the authority that the big food corporations possess over their farmers, workers, and also regulatory agencies.  Experts such as Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, an investigative writer, Barbara Kowalcyk, a food safety advocate, and Joel Salatin, an American holistic farmer all give the film high credibility. After viewing the film, I felt somewhat dumbfounded by the things that I saw. First, comprehending the grasp that the big companies like Tyson, and Purdue have on their farmers disgusted me. Carole Morrison, a former farmer for Purdue, has had enough of what she has deemed to be immoral farming. She is interviewed about the subject and states, “I understand why farmers don’t want to talk, because the company can do what it wants to do as far as pay goes because they control everything.” This quotation, and the interview, shows how one sided these contracts with the big food companies truly are. Her contract was terminated due to her lack of interest in changing her chicken coups to Purdue’s standards, and her disgust with the antibiotics and abnormal growth of her chickens. Not only do they control the farming portion of the meat packing industry, but the film unveils a far more concerning issue. It explains how many of the members of the FDA and USDA are former members of the beef industry. Notably, during the Bush administration, the chief of staff of the USDA, James F. Fitzgerald, was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry, and also the head of the FDA, Lester M Crawford Jr., was the former executive VP of the National Food Processors Association.

This portion of the film leads into one of the most heartfelt pieces of evidence, children dying of a particular deadly pathogen in contaminated foods. Escherichia Coli 0157:H7 is the strand that killed Kevin Kowalyck, son of Barbara Kowalyck, whose story is shown throughout the film. Kevin is a victim of a foodborne illness. He was only two years and eight months old, and the illness killed him in just twelve days. Barbara struggles to enact change in the government as we watch her bring the case of her son to state and federal courts to dispute new regulations. This horrifying story is also very closely related to a piece by Marion Nestle called, “Resisting Food Safety.” Nestle has a Ph.D, M.P.H., and is a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. In her research about issues of foodborne illness she enlightens the reader about the politics and power behind food safety. The piece provides data from the past thirty years of the number of outbreaks and deaths of certain pathogens, and brings forward the statement that the food corporations and the government aren’t doing their part to ensure the safety of the consumers. In addition, Nestle also gives us some insight into it being an unreasonable task for the FDA and USDA to oversee the entire food production in the United States. Only 700 FDA inspectors are responsible for overseeing 30,000 manufacturers, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial establishments, 128,000 grocery stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. To me this seems like a nearly impossible task, and the USDA doesn’t do much better considering that they have twice as large of a budget than the FDA and ten times the workers, according to Nestle’s research. The USDA only regulates twenty percent of the food supply, and just fifteen percent of foodborne illness is reported under their jurisdiction in 2000! Marion Nestle’s aim of her piece is to provide stakeholders perspectives on the issues and how each parties’ goals are not aligned. The manufacturers claim that profit is maximizing shareholder wealth, but there has got to be a consensus to make safety the number one priority.

Consumer Reports, “You Are What They Eat,” provides evidence of the things that are being fed to our food and how it is affecting us. This piece is aimed at the health conscious and concerned consumers, so it displays a variety of input from experts of science and other areas of expertise. The article’s purpose is to expose the benefits and risks behind the processed feed that is being given to our livestock. David Fairfield, the director of feed services for the National Grain and Feed Association argues that, “animal protein products, meat and bone meal, and blood meat are nutritional feed ingredients.” However, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease and Control Prevention) these processed feed ingredients have far more potential for being contaminated. The biggest issue that we are facing is linking the contaminations with actual human illness. There is just not a big enough system to control and inspect where all of the contaminations are originating from. In 1997, a feed ban was enacted by the FDA to prevent infectious prions, or proteins that could lead to mad cow disease. However, the FDA’s enforcement of this ban has been very slim. They admitted that the results of their inspections were “severely flawed” due to a lack of compliance by the manufacturers. With this type of system that we have in place where these companies can skew and deflect attempts at inspections and regulation, we are not going to be able to enact change. Our government needs to take control of the situation and spend the necessary capital to regain control of the food industry and ultimately provide safety to our consumers.

Problems with the Food Industry

            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, do a good job at exposing and 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 are natural but 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 Consumer Reports article partly disagrees by saying that if less pesticides and antibiotics were used, then there would be less risk of getting some diseases. But the article concedes that organic foods may not be the answer because there is no guarantee that it is disease free. Both articles agree, though, that organic foods are way too expensive to be the food of choice. So again, it all comes back to costs. Companies will continue to use these practices as long as it saves them money.

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.

Food safety is a huge problem in the United States and it is related to the issues of money and power. Throughout the industry, there are many problems resulting in unsafe foods. These problems can be traced to industry heads trying to make more money and lack of government regulation. The lack of regulation can be traced to conflicts of interest and money being poured into the government from the food industry. 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. 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. 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.

Companies like to function in ways that will help them achieve their ultimate wants and needs, 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. 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. This is a similar idea expressed in You Are What They Eat. The article extends the idea because it talks about how there is poor regulation monitoring so companies are going to feed what ever 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 so it seems as if they are not at fault for someone getting food poisoning or E. coli. This issue cannot be blamed on consumers when new bacteria and diseased 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. Many months after Kevin’s death Kevin’s Law was proposed legislation that would gave the United States Department of Agriculture the power to close down plants that produce contaminated meat. The fact that it took so long for this law to pass goes to she how little power the government has over such larger companies that produce our food. The company 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 expresses that the industry is changing rapidly, creating more and more unsafe food. With their arguments, I believe 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 and that 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.

It has become frustratingly obvious that food safety, more than ever before, has taken a backseat to production efficiency and maximum profit. Blatant ignorance controls and justifies every aspect of a process that could very simply be regulated to adhere to strict quality control standards. While it seems that government has in place regulatory agencies overlooking issues of food safety, it has been made clear that profits are more important than public health. Although they claim to have the publics safety and best interest in mind, these agencies are under funded and under staffed, heavily influenced, lobbied and riddled with regulatory loopholes. When it comes to the food we eat, these government agencies have continually dropped the ball. At times with disastrous and fatal results. Through the hard work and research of food activists such as Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, as well as, documentary filmmaker Robert Kenner, and Marion Nestle Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, along with many other investigative news journalists and publications including Consumer Reports, the public has become more aware and better educated regarding the shady practices of food manufacturing and production. According to Ms. Nestle, the most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of foodborne disease in the United States is 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths. Furthermore, although outbreaks of foodborne illness have become more dangerous over the years, food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. If it sounds like, or is assumed that, government agencies such as the FDA and the USDA would protect the consumer by every means at their disposal, fact could not be further from the truth. Ms. Nestle continues, because federal policies cannot ensure that food is safe before people bring it home, government agencies shift the burden of responsibility to consumers. Government oversight of food safety has long tended to provide far more protection to food producers than to the public. Today, an inventory of federal food safety activities reveals a system breathtaking in its irrationality: 35 separate laws administered by12 agencies housed in six cabinet-level departments. At best, a structure as fragmented as this one would require extraordinary efforts to achieve communication, let alone coordination, and more than 50 interagency agreements govern such efforts. This lack of proper regulation is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to food safety, and further investigation exposes alarming practices at the conventional farming level. According to Consumer Reports, life on today’s farm – often a 30,000-cow feedlot or a 60,000-chicken coop, and the need for huge quantities of high-protein rations as well as, the need for slaughterhouses to find a cheap, safe way to dispose of waste gave rise to a marriage of convenience between renderers and food producers, and to the inclusion of animal by-products in animal feed. Through this practice, food animals are now being fed processed feathers, floor wastes from coops, plastic pellets, as well as, meat and bone meal. These waste products, mixed with corn and soybean meal, make up 10-30% of the feed produced for these mega-farm feedlots. It does not take a food safety expert to see all that is wrong with such a practice. Although many of those who work in big business food production decline to be interviewed about their process, much of the ignorance involved in their decisions and practices have come to light. Blake Hurst, commercial farmer and president of the Missouri Farm Bureau has stated, 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 rations. The absurdity of such statements is fundamental to the myriad of problems that have engulfed the commercial food industry. When farmers such as this, and the government agencies that oversee these practices believe the current methods of production best provide a plentiful and affordable food supply, it becomes painfully obvious that profits are the driving force behind this line of thinking. 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, and more recently by the courts. These facts have been substantiated and echoed by others also investigating the food industry. In his Documentary, Food Inc., award winning filmmaker Robert Kenner has brought to light many other disturbing facts related to food safety. According to interviews with Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, five companies control 80% of the meat production in this country. Of these companies, ALL have ties or close relations to members of congress or other judicial or political figures. At this alarming statistic, it is not difficult to see that conflict of interest is obviously ignored so as to benefit big business and their partners. From lack of proper food inspection and regulatory loopholes, to the antibiotics and inedible ingredients put into animal feed, to the ammonia and other chemicals mixed into ground beef and more, every step of the food manufacturing process is rife with unthinkable disregard. Farming is no longer farming. We are no longer eating food, and what we are eating is the idea of food. When the agencies trusted to oversee food safety have such unimaginable conflicts of interest, how can they be relied upon to give truthful and accurate information on the supposed organic foods also regulated under their authority. Although the FDA and the USDA certify certain foods as organic, claims such as no antibiotics administered, no hormones administered and no chemicals added are unverified. So are claims by some beef brands that their cattle are raised on an all-grain or all-grass diet.