Our food industry has grown to be so large and complex that government agencies cannot enforce safety regulations and prevent consumers from becoming sick.

The FDA has 700 inspectors on staff for a nation of people who consume 137 pounds of meat per person, per year. An understaffed agency that doesn’t see, touch or smell the food cannot decide if it is safe for you to eat.

“We a eat a lot; an average of 137 pounds of beef, chicken, fish and shellfish per American in 2002.” (Consumer Reports You Are What They Eat)

With the increased amount of food demanded, more food must be farmed in less time, so new farming practices are adopted, and the USDA and FDA simply cannot regulate them.

Because of this, as Food, Inc. stipulates, our food is no longer farmed or grown, it is produced.

100 years ago a farmer could produce 20 bushels of corn in an acre. Today, 200 bushels can be produced in one acre (due to pesticides).

The image of a farmer in a straw hat harvesting corn is no longer the reality. The reality is that our food production process is an industrial one.

In The Government’s Role in Food Safety, U.S. Senator Jon Tester discusses his choice to pass an amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act.

His goal is to explain the amendment that excludes small farmers from the same regulations as big corporations. In the process, he highlights an important point

“Four companies own more than 80 percent of the beef market, and one company, Monsanto, controls 85 percent of the corn and 91 percent of the soybeans”.

“These types of complex production chains have created consumers who have no idea where their food comes from and government regulations tailored to multi-billion-dollar corporations.”

These companies have changed the way food is produced and control the market as well as the governing bodies. The side effect is consumer sickness outbreaks.

The question, therefore, is not longer only ‘what are we eating?’ It is also ‘what are they eating?’

“In the U.S. alone, 14,000-plus companies sell as many as 200 basic feeds”.

“Companies produce more than 308 billion pounds of animal feed annually.” (Consumer Reports, You Are What They Eat, 26)

One may think that there are not enough natural ingredients in the world to feed our annual food supply, which is correct. Other ingredients then must be substituted, ingredients that these animals do not eat naturally and do not process naturally.

According to Food, Inc., cows are fed corn, instead of naturally grazing and eating grass. The corn in their stomach is known to accelerate the growth and spread of e. coli, yet it is still common practice.

“Processed feathers are an acceptable source of protein in cattle feed, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as is poultry litter – floor wastes from coops, including feces.”

The amount of meat demanded by the consumers is so great that our nation is no longer able to feed our cattle the way they are naturally meant to eat. The USDA was not intended to regulate hundreds of billions of pounds of animal feed annually.

As a result chickens are genetically enhanced to develop larger breasts and as a result cannot walk more than a few steps on there own two feet. They fall to the dirty ground of a chicken coop.

It comes as a shock to most people that the USDA allows poultry litter, including feces, to be fed to the cattle raised for human consumption. However, it is just another example of how the food industry has grown to become so big that government agencies are unable to regulate the production companies.

The USDA and FDA were intended to work as filters to ensure that only safe and healthy products make it from the farms to each table in the United States. Well clearly we need to increase the number of filters, or increase the size of the existing ones because according to Marion Nestle in “Resisting Food Safety,” 76 million people within the Unites States develop a case of foodborne disease or illness every year.

Increasing the amount of food taken in over time leads to more contaminants passing through the food we eat to us. This presents a larger amount of people with the risk of foodborne illness and disease. The government is simply not able to uphold safety standards for the increased amount of production.

Outdated laws and red tape hinder governing agencies from making the changes necessary to ensure consumer safety.

Marion Nestle writes in Resisting Food Safety that food regulation laws are outdated.  “Federal oversight of food safety remains unshakably rooted in policies established almost a century ago, in 1906.”

“Congress designed those policies to ensure the health of animals, in an era long before most of the current microbial causes of foodborne illness were even suspected, let alone recognized.” (Nestle, Resisting Food Safety, 26)

Laws designed for smaller scale true farming applied to current situations do not allow agencies enough power to maintain safety.

Hurst, in his article Organic Illusions, asserts that food demand and supply has grown at such large rates that there is no clear solution.

“If food demand nearly doubles over the next 50 years, as it’s predicted to do, there just isn’t enough arable land available to support a wholesale adoption of organic methods.” (Hurst, Organic Illusions, 7)

Now there is the issue of what do we do; the situation is not black and white, there is no simple solution because the problem has become so complex. The food industry has become a different animal it is now a matter of risk management, nobody wants to take the blame for foodborne illness.

“Producers blame processors for foodborne illness, and processors blame producers; government regulators blame both, and everyone blames consumers.” (Nestle, Resisting Food Safety, 28)

“Because federal policies cannot ensure that food is safe before people bring it home, government agencies shift the burden of responsibility to consumers.”

It has become the job of the consumer to ensure our safety because the government is no longer able to enforce regulations that do so themselves.

The structure of the federal food regulatory agencies contributes to the lack of ability to properly govern the industry. Nestle describes the system, “25 separate laws administered by 12 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.”

When it comes to the issue of food safety, regulation should be prompt, organized and efficient, because food borne illness is a true threat. Preventing consumer risk requires agencies that can stand up to the corporations of the food industry and ensure safety for the people.

The growth of the agencies must also match the growth of the food system itself. If, according to Hurst, food demand doubles over the course of the next 50 years, the agencies should in size double as well.

Recently, especially with the current public relations and public image issues for Chipotle, food borne illness is becoming more a part of public conversation.

It is not the first major outbreak in the United States. Numerous outbreaks of Salmonella, Listeria and e. coli O26 have occurred from produce contaminations. Whatever the source of the Chipotle contamination, it should have been caught earlier before the food got to the table.

The government agencies such as the FDA and USDA should delegate their responsibilities to a larger number of employees or other separate agencies so that they can ensure that the food industry will be properly regulated.

Ideally, the consumer should not bear the brunt of ensuring their own safety. The issue should be controlled while the food is being produced, so that the chance of any food borne illness or disease reaching the consumer is minimized.

The USDA and FDA should have more power, and be able to administer legislature promptly to allow consumers to feel safe when buying produce.

We must remember that at the end of the day, the concern is the safety of the public consumers, and it should be taken as seriously as possible.

 

Reflection Questions

1. The “writer’s project” is essentially the goal of the writer. I was able to identify the texts’ project by looking for the major claim in the beginning of the texts. By reading through the rest of the body paragraphs and conclusion of the text I was able to narrow in further on the project.
2. The “Sorting it Out” workshop helped me in general to identify the project of each text and to find the paths through which the texts connect. Finding quotes from the texts that relate to each other helped me get into the specific arguments supporting the claim of my article.
3. Synthesis was important when bringing together the content of multiple texts to build a larger claim. By synthesizing five texts in my article, I was able to make a claim about our food industry and the agencies that regulate it.
4. I learned how to understand the project of each piece and synthesize the information to form a claim. During this unit I learned how to write an article style-piece properly, including how to write an engaging lede.
5. The main idea was there there was some major flaw with our food system if food borne illness is such a prevalent issue. I expanded on this and argued that the source of the issue is that the demand for food has become so large that it cannot be regulated by current methods.
6. I organized my writing by generally building up my argument of my claim. I started by giving useful background information on the topic, and identifying the issues with it. I then moved on to how the regulating agencies play a role, their shortcomings, and a general solution.
7. In the final draft I use a quote from Consumer Reports “You are What They Eat” to explain how large the food demand has become. I then use “The Government’s Role in Food Safety” to show the size of the corporations that control the industry.  The quote also mentions how the government is controlled by the food industry, not vice-versa. Lastly, by looking to Marion Nestle in Resisting Food Safety, I use a quote from her on the number of consumers suffering from food borne illness each year.
8. The lede in my earliest draft attempted to use humor in a metaphor by saying “the chicken has grown to be larger than the coop” in an attempt to portray my message. I felt that this didn’t have any sustenance and did not make the claim clear, so I moved on to “Our food industry has grown to be so large and complex that government agencies cannot enforce safety regulations and prevent consumers from becoming sick.”
9. I would like to work on developing better structure of my next piece by defining a strong claim which I can build from.

 

After a long, busy day the only thing that could be on your mind is dinner. Starving from hours of not eating, your mouth waters at the smell of food. The last thing on your mind is where this food is coming from, how its prepared and if you will get sick. Our minds are trained not to think about what’s behind this large cheeseburger with a basket of salty fries. We trust what we are putting in our body because anything unhealthy, sanitized or even deathly would obviously be against the rules in the food industry and would be stopped by the government right? There are regulations that protect what we are eating and how it was produced? Nope. The Government and Food Industry aren’t as trust worthy as we hope to believe. The food industry has changed tremendously in the last 60 years. From farms, local and small companies to large, corrupt corporations that mass produces chemically enhanced foods. Our country has no clue what is happening behind the yummy looking meats, vegetables even sometimes “organic foods” and may never even try to find out.

Each year, over 70 million people are effected by a food borne illness, and this number is just rising. Even children, Food Inc. introduces the story of Kevin Kowalcyk, a young boy who died after eating only one hamburger coming back from vacation. For years, Kevin’s mother and family has shared their story and fought the food industry’s to pass important regulation laws but it continues to be a constant battle. that In one of the strongest industry’s, shouldn’t the government, medical world and corporations being stopping these food borne illness’s? Food companies don’t have to have a recall on something they know is causing sickness, but many do just for the image. Its very uncommon that the government and even doctors step in unless hundreds get ill or multiple die mostly because its too much effort to have evidence that a certain food caused a death. Marion Nestle states “USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they over see 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 been 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.” We hope that professionals, like food inspectors are making sure these companies aren’t getting away with unhealthy and harmful practices of food processing, but we can’t when we don’t even have enough of them to go around.

Food Inc., an extremely effective way of opening the world to the corrupt and unhealthy food industry, Shows the conditions these animals are living in. They are packed into small, tight, feces ridden dark shacks, eating pounds of chemically packed foods, which lead straight to our bodies. Cows, are being fed corn which creates a fatter cow and more beef but packs the animals with bacteria that is extremely harmful to not only their bodies but then to us. The bacteria is found in their feces that are often mixed in to our meat supply because of the busy and over packed slaughter houses. It isn’t only the animals being treated poorly but the workers as well. Carole, a farmer who stated, “Having no say in your business is degrading, its like you are a slave to the company.”, in the film. These large corporations break many labor and job laws as well, overworking their employees in harmful and unhealthy conditions. Robert Kenner and his film Food Inc, opens our eyes to way the food industry takes over everything, Michael Pollen states, “It looks like there is diversity in supermarkets but its really just a few companies”. Even what we thought of as small, local and healthy brands are owned by huge corporations like Kellogg, Tyson, and Pepsi. Michael Pollen also speaks about the harmful and genetically modified foods we are eating “There is 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, its kind of a notional tomato. I mean it’s the idea of a tomato.” Yes, maybe it is nice to be able to eat your favorite fruit or vegetable all year round, but it is everything but natural.

Organic Illusions, written by Blake Hurst shines a light on organic food industry as well. Although Organic foods are the better path to take, its still hard to trust a company that we don’t know much about. “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.” Although Hurst does not provide much evidence about these problems and the studies included had numbers, dates, it still gets the job done of questioning what we are putting inside our bodies.

The corrupt food industry and ginormous corporations put the money over the customers everyday. The only reason they don’t want someone to get sick from a food borne illness is not because they made someone sick but because it just makes the company look bad and lose money. They do everything they can do produce fast and cheap, breaking and bending around many regulations and laws. We cannot continue to pretend that these companies and government are trying to keep us safe. We cannot trust everything we are putting into our own bodies and have to stop letting these companies run our country and lives.

 

John Carino

Writing 205

Food Politics

2/21/15

 

Food plays a vital role in our daily lives. Without it we cannot survive, so shouldn’t it be a priority to make sure that what we eat is safe? Food in America has become industrialized to able to meet the mass needs of consumers across the country. However, as a result of this industrialization emphasis has begun to lean more towards the “industry” than “food” in the food industry. Companies have begun cutting corners to maximize production and profits. As a result of this the quality of the food being produced has changed drastically and many other problems have been caused. While promoting public awareness about issues in the industrial food system is important, beyond just spreading awareness there needs to be a more significant movement to instigate change in the industrial food system and improvements in government regulation of this industry. These changes would include more transparency of food production to consumers and fewer “shortcuts” being taken to save money, for example feeding animals what nature intended for them. These operations would result in a safer public well-being from issues such as food borne illnesses and diseases.

 

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

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

 

Consumers blindly accept the lies fed to them by the food industry. Marion Nestle writes

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

In conclusion by creating a more transparent food industry and instigating stricter regulation, the food industry could return to being an industry with the primary purpose of serving the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products. It will take time effort from much of the population, but it is not an impossible goal.

 

 

 

As the movement for healthier and safer (organic) food has recently gained recognition with the millennials many people have started to question the extent of the safety and regulation of produce in the United States. There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety the public now demands from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.

As the population continues to increase with higher life expectancies thanks to newer technology and better medication there is an ever growing demand for an increased produce yield. In result many large food corporations have quickly expanded making regulating each and every factory, slaughter house, and barn even more feasibly impossible for the government to regulate just due to the pure number of investigations they are responsible for. In Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, Nestle starts to explore how the government has to break down and take on the task of regulating the food industry in the United States. Nestle argues that as the produce industry continues to expand the expectations from the public for the government to regulate all produce becomes more and more un-realist. The majority of the food regulated by the government is overseen by 2 agencies; the USDA and the FDA. Each is responsible for different parts of the regulation process where the FDA is in charge of regulation up until the slaughter house and inspects all foods except meat, poultry and eggs where the USDA is then in charge of the rest of the regulation process beginning at the slaughter house and inspects meat, poultry, processed meat and eggs. Because of the recent expansion in the food industry both agencies are extremely over worked and as stated by Nestle are tasked with an impossible task of regulating the food industry, “By the early 1980’s, for example the poultry industry had already expanded far beyond any reasonable inspection capacity.” Already by the 80’s Nestle explains that the poultry industry has reached a size beyond reasonable inspection capacity. Then Nestle goes into further detail and provides the overwhelming statistic of the amount of establishments each agency is each responsible for, “In 1975, USDA officials examined 14 billion pounds of birds at 154 plants; just six years later they had to inspect 29 billion pounds at 371 plants. The 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 produced each year.” Those statistics are unfathomable and the FDA doesn’t get it any easier, “If anything, the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable. About 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. The agency also must deal with food imports, which comprised 40% of the country’s supply of fresh fruits and vegetables and 68% of the seafood in 2000.” Not only are both agencies significantly understaffed but they are also greatly underfunded, “The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was just $283 million in 2000, miniscule by any standard of federal expenditure.” As proven by Nestle the demand on the government to regulate the entire food industry is physically impossible, and even if it was are the benefits of having an all organic produce system that significant?

Many people have come to believe the narrative that organic food is a safer and healthier option than traditionally grown produce but as argued by Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions the advantages of having a theoretically all organic system does not outweigh the disadvantages. Even with a major increase in the demand for organic produce the size of the industry is still relatively insignificant, “Despite the growth in organic food sales, they only constitute 4 percent of the dollar value of all foods sold; and since organic foods often cost twice of what conventionally grown foods do, the quantity of organic sales constitutes considerably less than 4 percent of the total market.” The margin of income when growing all organic food is radically less than that of traditionally grown produce. Another disadvantage argued by Hurst is that the extra production steps required to grow ‘organic’ food would require an unrealistic number of increased employment in the food industry, “Millions of additional hands would be needed to produce food on America’s farms without modern technology. In many places around the world where organic farming is the norm, a large proportion of the population is involved in farming. Not because they chose to but because they must.” Not only does Nestle explain the many inefficiencies with organic farming he also explains the lack of significant health benefits that the organic narrative claims to provide, “The Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in E. coli.” This document starts to uncover the truth of organic food and the lack of significant health benefits that the public have been repeatedly led to believe. After looking at two texts it is already clear that one; the process of regulating the entire food industry in the United States is an unfathomable task for the government (by itself) to accomplish and two; that even if it was feasibly possible to have an entirely organic food industry the health benefits and relative safety of the food would not be significantly impacted. After reading a snippet of a headline talking about the seriousness about foodborne illnesses and the poor safety regulation job the government does many consumers jump to the conclusion that the food they eat is substantially less safe than organic food when in fact most of the public does not understand the extreme testing and research done on the traditionally grown produce.

The amount of research and testing done regarding the safety of our food is overwhelming. Many organic consumers claim that the traditional animal feed is unsanitary and contains harmful bacteria and pathogens but as put forth in You Are What They Eat, from consumer reports, the opposite is actually true, “The waste is processed until it bears no resemblance to its former self. Thomas Cook, president of the National Renderers Assoctiation, told us that after the rendering process thoroughly heats, presses and grinds animal tissue, it “looks like a pile of brown sugar.”” Not only is the procedure highly regulated but there are also multiple health benefits not spoken of, “Phillip Petry, president of AAFCO, speaks of the merits of chicken waste. “There is a yuck factor because it doesn’t sound at all appetizing he says, but the nitrogen level in poultry litter is real high, so they get a real good protein jump out of that.”” The animal feed that traditional farmers use not only save a large amount of resources but it has also been found to boost the nutritional factors of the produce.

 

Conclusion

–

–

–

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

Marion Nestle points out in Resisting Food Safety that the FDA focuses on everything but meat, but even then their duties only end at the slaughterhouse, meaning a fairly small agency monitors all of our food, drugs, and even the animals all the way up until they are killed. Meanwhile, the larger USDA only monitors animals post-death. The way that the duties are split between the two agencies is mind bending, and shows the convoluted way our food is taken care of.

Food Inc., You are what they eat, and Resisting Food Safety all say that the food industry is careless in the way they are treating the bacteria, and the government is not doing much to help. In Resisting Food Safety, Nestle points out that the original legislature for food production was created to protect the animals.  In Food Inc. Kevin’s mom tells the story of how she lost her son, and then mentions Kevin’s Law, which would have forced the USDA to establish performance standards to decrease pathogens in our food, as well as allow the USDA to shut down plants. Kevin’s law was never passed, however Obama did pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011 which upheld some of Kevin’s law. This gave the government slightly more control over what goes into our food, but it still may not be enough.

The most common problems brought to light about the food industry are food borne pathogens. Harmful bacteria such as e. coli, listeria, and salmonella are byproducts of our highly industrialized food production system where there is blood and feces all over the slaughterhouses and animal coops. These diseases are allowed to spread into our food through various means and can cause mass outbreaks throughout the country. Rather than maintaining a clean environment for the animals and solving the problem at the root, the food industry came up with different way to combat the pathogens. In Food Inc. they showed that there are small amounts of ammonia mixed into ground beef to try and kill E. Coli, the documentary also talked about how animals are given antibiotics, even if they are not sick, to try and prevent diseases. While Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions points out that harmful chemicals such as ammonia have been shown to not be harmful in small doses, there is still a real threat of antibiotic immunity. The antibiotics given to our food is spread to humans when they eat it, this then causes bacteria to build up a resistance to antibiotics, creating much more harmful pathogens.

Another side of government oversight is shown in You are what they eat which drives home the point that our food may not be what we believe it should be, and there is not much being done about it. For instance, parts of very sick downer cows is approved to be part of animal feed, as long as it is not fed to other cows. However, these cows can be fed to pigs and chickens and fish, which can be eventually fed back to cows, causing a possible spread of the prions that cause mad cow disease. Even the part about not feeding downer cows to other cows is lax, “more than four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still hadn’t acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.’” If the FDA is not taking steps to ensure that mad cow disease is not being spread, are they truly doing what they are supposed to do?

The Food industry is growing each year, according to Cassandra Brooks in Consequences of increased global meat consumption, the worldwide consumption of livestock will double by 2020. Because of this huge increase, the food industry is growing its profits, and ignoring the huge effects they are causing on public health, wellness, and even the environment. Livestock production has become hugely industrialized in order to meet the demand, and it is taking a toll on the environment. According to the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, “Livestock Production accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including 9 percent carbon dioxide and 37 percent of methane gas emissions worldwide” (Cassandra Brooks).

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

While global warming is not the focus of this article, it does bring to question the true consequences of our food industry. The food industry has caused many small farmers to go out of business, or switch to industrial farming, which they may not enjoy at all. It also is responsible for a rise in food-borne pathogens and deaths from these pathogens. Another consequence may be the rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes. When our food is processed, there are certain ingredients put in like high fructose corn syrup, which is harder to process than simple sugars. This creates a spike in insulin, causing a feeling of hunger more quickly, even though a person may not truly need more food.

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

1000 word response feb 22

The production of food is still and always has been a very controversial topic. There are many different points of view and voices each trying to sway readers to side with them. Throughout these five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat,” “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety” there are many different voices either condoning or criticizing the ways of the food industry. The controversial nature of food safety yields an unproductive environment for change and with no one unanimously at fault (government, consumers, food producers, workers) unhealthy and unsanitary methods of food production continue to affect consumers.

Food Inc., a documentary that criticizes how much control the food industry has, speaks to the audience to invoke change. One of the first lines said in the documentary, as a way to summarize the overall theme was, “the industry doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating, because if you knew, you wouldn’t eat it.” Food Inc. makes it clear how much control the food industry actually has, stating that never in history have food companies been as big or as powerful as they are now. As also mentioned in “Resisting Food Safety,” the four leading firms are controlling a huge proportion of the industry and are continuing to grow. Tyson, for example, after its merge with IBP, “controls 28% of the world’s beef, 25% of the world’s chicken, and 18% of the pork” (Nestle, 44). These industries, along with many others that make up the remaining percentage of food producers, seem to intentionally keep consumers in the dark making them unaware of the industry’s production methods and the food they are consuming.

Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions. An example of this is the ban on feeding the protein from cow ruminants to other ruminants, ideally preventing the spread of mad cow disease. However, rather than honoring the nature of the regulation, food producers would take the protein from cow ruminants, even from downer cows, and feed it to pigs, chicken, and fish. Then those remains would be fed to back to the ruminants. The whole argument about government in this article was that the government is too slow in creating bans and too lax in enforcing regulations. “Resisting Food Safety” has evidence of the influence of the food industry on the government saying the Congress overruled FDA attempts to restrict the use of antibiotics in feed because of the intense pressure from the livestock producers. The food producer’s lobbying pushes Congress into clashing with the FDA until, eventually, the FDA backs down.

Even with substantial evidence of the power the food industry has, many companies and producers argue that they are not at fault for consumer sickness and, in fact, the consumer is at fault. As mentioned in “Food Safety,” in the industry’s eyes, food producers are not liable to control food safety because the consumer most likely inadequately underwent the necessary food preparation steps. Although it is proven that actions taken in the food production process (i.e. ammonia injections, pesticides) can and have led to contamination and illness, food industries continue to imply that food preparation the most crucial step in making the food safe. It is true that high heat can make the impact of pathogens on peoples’ health minimal to non-existent, however this cannot be the only boundary between safe and unsafe food. Many foods are eaten raw or without much cooking. Foods in this category need to be safe without relying on heat. “Resisting Food Safety” also briefly touches on this topic explaining how the food industries do not express self-blame. Food industries are very comfortable with placing the blame elsewhere, for example to consumers, the government, and even workers. There is evidence that inadequacy from each segment can lead to unsafe food, however it is wrong and unfair for a segment as powerful as the food industries are to deny responsibility and place the blame elsewhere.

Despite the aforementioned arguments against the food industry control, Blake Hurst, writer of “Organic Illusions,” contradicts these arguments in an attempt to bring justification the actions of the food industry. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and, contrary to the previous sources, does not have as many negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food. Hurst’s piece consists of comparing the methods of conventionally produced foods to organically produced foods by stating first, why people perceive organic as better, then, his logic to disprove this common assumption. Throughout the piece he pulls examples that support the amount of control the food industry has. One point he makes is about the pesticide exposure. He goes on to state that the food industry’s conventional farming is actually better and healthier for people than the organic alternative. He backs this up by saying that pesticides are going to be on foods regardless, and on most foods, the pesticide level is too low to cause any harm. However, he continues with implying that organically produced food is actually worse because natural pesticides are less effective and therefore need to be applied in much higher quantities than their man-made counterpart. Another example of how Hurst believes the food industries have an appropriate amount of control is environment preservation. Hurst says that conventional farming preserves nature better because it takes less space to produce the same amount of food conventionally than it does to farm organically.

These five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat,” “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety,” are just a few of the countless number of pieces speaking their own opinions about food production. From the sources collected in this instance, there are more arguments against food industries than for. With this being said, there is also a theme among the pieces against the food industry that exercise an opinion about power and control. Most of the food producers have too much control and are not paying enough attention to the health and well being of their consumers. Throughout these pieces it is clear that food safety is an issue that needs to be faced head on, however the difficulties of doing so can be overbearing. Change has to happen collectively throughout all parts of the chain (food producers, government, and consumers). However, the lack of cohesiveness throughout impedes the movement towards a healthier environment.

When most people think of where their food comes from, they probably think of a farm. Perhaps their farm has a happy farmer and his family making conscious decisions about the food they are making. The farmer could be the one in charge of how his food is created and what growing practices he/she chooses to follow. However, the sad reality is that the food industry is no longer controlled by the farmers themselves, they are controlled by big businesses.

These businesses have a lot more power than the average Joe thinks they do.  Most of these large corporations have a strong hold on the average farmer. These large businesses often put farmers in crippling debt and force the to follow unsafe farming practices. With most of these businesses having a huge monopoly within the farming realm, most farmers have no choice but to succumb to whatever unsafe practices that company wants. Large companies such as Monsanto, have even gone as far as controlling what type of seed farmers use and how they use it. They use scare tactics to keep farmers from speaking out or breaking these unfair rules.

But the corruption does not stop there.

Almost all of these large food production companies have members running for important positions in government. This leads to an ever present bias within government towards the food industry rather than public safety. These government positions allow for companies to have control over what safety precautions are made, which often benefits the company rather than the consumer.

In the world of food production, money is a much larger concern than food safety. The people within this growing industry are fully aware that their food is unsafe, yet they continue with these bad practices because they are more profitable.

But that leads to big question: what is making our food unsafe?

You could point to a number of culprits: pesticides, antibiotics, pathogens, and animal feed. However, these are just a few of the many problems within the food industry.

Pesticides:

So if pesticides are the problem, what don’t more people choose organic? This is the question many people seem to be asking. The problem with this statement is that the answer may not lie within the organic food industry. In a study done by Stanford University, is was found that organic foods did have less pesticides than conventional food. However, E.Coli was far more present in the organically grown food. In an article written by Blake Hurst, it was revealed that even the organic food industry is not entirely pesticide free. While the pesticides being used are not as strong, the organic farmer will often have to use more pesticides in order to make the less potent kind more successful. So in regards to pesticides, there does not seem to be a way around it entirely.

Antibiotics & Pathogens:

The reason why antibiotics are used in food production is not necessarily a bad one at first glance. The reason is to prevent sick animals from creating sick consumers after eating that animals product. However, the more antibiotics are used in animals, the more antibiotic resistant bacteria are formed. This resistant bacteria contaminates the food that comes from that sick animals, which can then make the consumer develop an antibiotic resistant infection. While the CDC says that the use of antibiotics in the food industry should only be used to address sickness in animals, not to promote growth. However, even animals that are not sick get large doses of these antibiotics in order to create a bigger ‘super’ animal to create more food.

Animal Feed:

What do you think a cow eats? Most people would say grass, right? Well the sad truth is that most cows and other animals no longer eat grass, they eat corn and other waste products. These waste products are not limited to processed feathers, poultry litter, floor waste, feces, plastic pellets, and other forms of meat. As we know, cows and chickens are not carnivores and probably should not be eating feces from other animals. The reason why the food industry does this is because this type of ‘animal feed’ makes the animals fatter creating more food production per animal, which is then more profit for the food industry. This also creates less waste from the food industry since rather than throwing these things away, they feed them to the animals. The problem with this practice though, is that whatever the animal eats directly influences the consumer. In a study done by the Animal Protein Producers Industry, salmonella was found is about one fourth of feed on average. To simplify, if the cows are eating salmonella contaminated food, and then the consumer is eating it, there is a much higher likelihood that the consumer will then be contaminated as well.

So, why does all of this matter to the consumer?

It matters because the consumer should have a say in how their food is being made. They should also be knowledgable about what exactly the risks are to what they are eating. If the consumer is unaware of the practices being used in the food industry, how will they be able to fight it? They won’t.

The food industry needs a completely renovation. The government should not be biased towards companies using unsafe practices. The people that make decisions on consumer health should be the consumer themselves, not the company getting a paycheck. Th only people that should have a say in what a safe farming practice is, is the consumers and the FDA or other food safety commissions.

A change needs to be made, and while change may take time it is definitely worth the wait to save even one life from dangerous food consumption. Food should not be made on a conveyer belt. Cows and other animals were meant to eat grass and be able to roam around. While these new techniques have made quite the profit for these big companies, the consumer is suffering greatly.  Consumer health needs to come before profit, and the only way to do that is to fight the industry for change.

 

The food industry is one of the most important yet controversial industries in modern capitalism. Established by a few big name brands, such as Tyson, the food industry is comprised of big businesses trying to make the biggest bang for their buck. However, the methods used in order to ensure efficiency and create the cheapest possible product, comes with a price. We have discovered in class that food industry uses unsanitary and dishonest techniques in order to maximize their profit. With the recent exposure towards to methods that they normally keep behind the scenes, the food industry has been taking hits from people and companies that value healthy foods and a healthy environment. There is conflict between being healthy, and promoting health and well-being, and supporting the capitalistic business methods that exploit the system by practicing unsanitary and dishonest methods, but, yield the most in profit and efficiency. The question that I would like to bring up is: should the food industry be a part of the capitalistic system, or should a new structure be implemented that eliminates dishonesty to the public?

The intricate factor that a food company has versus, let’s say, a software company, is the fact that every human needs to eat. There is a large percentage of the population that does not have access to fresh and wholesome food. They are stuck buying cheaper products such as soda and fast-food, and are unable to control their diet due to economic issues. Organic companies are usually smaller establishments, and/or controlled by larger businesses. Due to the rigged system of capitalism, the smaller, health-branded companies’ products are marketed at a significantly higher cost. This is due to the fact that the larger food companies have the power, money, and resources to have cheaper prices, and run the smaller industries out of commision. In the movie Food Inc., a family explains how they are caught between buying quality food due to the high cost of medication. Paradoxically, purchasing high cost medication over healthy foods results the continuation of the family’s state of bad health. This cycle continues over and over again to people who suffer from poverty. Everyone should be able to have access to live a healthy life; it should not be determined by your economic standing.

Food companies such Tyson, have mastered a system that yields the most efficiency for their product. They are able to mass produce food at a fast rate for the lowest possible cost. Customers are grateful for these low prices, and continue to purchase their products. The company is doing their job, and we as consumers love the affordability of their product. But, ethically, is it right to  support companies and their dishonest methods? There are two schools of thought. One, that we, as the customer, are not at fault. We have the final say in what we purchase, and that the cruel methods have no effect on our lives or the product, so why should we be complaining about the efficient and low prices of the food. The other, that we as the customer have the power to change this seemingly rigged system, so why should we sit back and accept the cruel methods of the industry. The only way to make change is to change. Are we willing to pay a little extra money for a more organic product?

From a capitalistic perspective, the organic and healthier food industries would have to somehow combat the already established companies low priced products. From a liberal, almost socialistic perspective, the government would have to more gain control over the industry as a whole. Should food be handled by businesses, or the government? Hurst, writer of Organic Illusions,  explains that “plants and animals aren’t the least bit interested in the story the farmer has to tell. They don’t care about his sense of social justice, the size of his farm, or the business model that he has chosen. Plants don’t respond by growing better if the farmer is local, and pigs don’t care much about the methods used in the production of their daily ration. If those inputs that animals and plants require to grow are present, plants and animals respond in pretty similar ways. That means that when organic and/or conventional farmers provide the environment necessary for growth, plants and animals respond.” It is argued that anthropomorphism only limits ourselves as humans. However, we should not only practice for the sake of the environment and livestock, but for the sake of our own health.

In 1906, Upton Sinclare published The Jungle, a novel that exposed the food industry in a light that would gain attention politically through socialistic commentary.  He described these meat factories as “dingy,” “whose labyrinthine passages defied a breath of fresh air to penetrate them, and there were rivers of hot blood and carloads of moist flesh,” that “smelt like the craters of hell.” Rightfully so, Teddy Roosevelt established the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and other regulations to make sure the food industry was following a set of guidelines to ensure a quality product. This was the first of many acts and bills that involved the food industry. Nestle explains that “prior to the 1800s, the U.S. government took no responsibility for food safety.” Government regulation was the first step in ensuring a wholesome product, but businesses were still able to exploit the system in order to make prices cheaper. There needs to be a balance between the amount of freedom farmers have and the amount of control the government has on the product.

As humans, I believe that everyone should have the ability to obtain a healthy meal. The fact that people are unable to eat healthy and then become unhealthy due to economic issues is not right. People end up getting caught in this cycle of lack of health and are stuck contributing to the system. I believe that the structure of how we grow and produce our food needs to progressively change to support the health of everyone.

“These companies have legions of attorneys.  And they may sue even if they know they can’t win, just to send a message.” This quote is by Eric Schlosser in the documentary Food Inc. To put this quote in context, Eric Schlosser, a journalist, is talking about the food industry and their insane amount of power when it comes to the production of food in our country. The documentary Food Inc. aims to show the food industry as it really is. In other words, it shows the food industry from the side that consumers do not usually see. For example, consumers do not see how powerful the food industry really is until they are the ones fighting it. An example that the documentary used was the battle between Monsanto and a farmer who they were sewing for saving soybeans. Monsanto is a company that essentially has control over all soybean production because of their patent on the bioengineered soybean. Monsanto has the money and the resources to fight average farmers even if they only have suspicion that the farmer is using their patented soybeans against their patent agreements. This example just shows the power that the food industry has over producers. Those who produce our food our essentially puppets controlled by the food industry. Therefore, issues of food safety are widespread and out of reach not only by the consumer, but also by the producer.

To show the extent of how important food safety is and how it is neglected by the food industry, Food Inc. highlighted the story of Kevin. Kevin was two years old when he contracted E. coli from food and ended up hospitalized where he then died from the infection. His mom has been in a legal battle ever since. She has fought the government for more safety regulations when it comes to food, however, the food industry, highly backed by the government, is not easily budged and it has been a long and hard battle.

While the food industry claims that there are many safety regulations put in place to monitor the safety of food, evidence has surely proven otherwise. The article You Are What They Eat  provides various reasons to be concerned with the meat we are eating in the United States of America in regard to animal feed. The director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, Carol Tucker-Foreman, is quoted in this article saying “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.” This article quotes Fred Angulo who is the chief of the CDC’s foodborne and diarrheal branch who says that “connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult.” While it is hard to pinpoint human illnesses to animal feed, the article also notes that there have cases of salmonella linked to animal feed and the most recent case occurred in 2003. With that being said, it is obvious where the concern lies and that is with consumers. The fact that human illnesses are hard to trace already puts the food industry at an advantage. Saying that they are hard to trace does not mean that they are not a concern because even the CEO of the American Feed Industry Association is quoted in this article saying that feed can become contaminated because “people make mistakes.” Thus putting the consumer on the end of the mistakes that may end up with a foodborne illness while the food industry can blame it on an accident, if in fact, they are even caught.

The fact is is that it is hard to pinpoint where illnesses come from. The article Resisting Food Safety even shows how foodborne illnesses go unnoticed most of the time leaving the food industry off the hook and the consumer to suffer. The article states that even with 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths yearly in the United States of America “most episodes are never reported to health authorities and their cause is unknown.” The article not only highlights the severity of foodborne illnesses, but also how the use of antibiotics in animals can make foodborne illnesses even more severe. Using antibiotics creates a resistance to bacteria and therefore “If antibiotic-resistant bacteria infect people and cause a disease, the disease will be untreatable.” However, this article goes on to state how the drug industry does not agree with any attempt to hinder the use of drugs in animals for food even with the alarming evidence of how dangerous it can be to humans. In this scenario, the drug industry, as well as the food industry uses their power to maintain control over production even when the health of their consumers are at stake.

Organic Illusions, although arguing that organic food is worse for the consumer than conventionally farmed food, also notes how foodborne illnesses are neglected in light of those in the food industry. Organic Illusions argues that the organic industry is one built off the profits they can make by creating the image that organic food is better for people than conventionally farmed food. The argument the article makes is that the Stanford study found that E. coli is more prevalent in organic food. While this argument may not be from the most valid source, it still acknowledges how food safety is less important than the profits of the industry itself.

Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives is another article that positions the food industry as a powerful industry that would rather benefit than make food safe for its consumers. The article states that “Food safety (or the illusion of safety) is being positioned to secure capital rather than public welfare.” The article discusses an E. coli outbreak in contaminated spinach that sickened people in 26 states, over the course of six to eight weeks, and caused at least three deaths. It took about a week to find the distributor (Dole) and the article said that it would have taken even longer to find the contamination source insinuating that that was never discovered. Again, this article shows how, in this situation, the government and food industry responded but this was only in the case of a widespread and tragic instance. Also, how steps were only taken to secure the contaminated food but not to actually find the contamination to prevent it.

Since food is an intricate part of all of our lives, one would think that the food industry would be closely regulated. However, the FDA does not have the funding it needs to enforce all of the laws regarding food safety. This leads to self-regulations by companies who feel that profit is often more important than enforcing regulations. “The role of government in food safety demands particular notice. Current laws grant regulatory agencies only limited authority to prevent microbial contamination before food gets to the consumer” (Nestle 28). How are consumers supposed to protect themselves from harmful bacteria such as e-coli, when we can’t rely on our government to protect the consumer?

The continuous outbreaks of food born pathogens, such as e-coli and salmonella, show that there are many flaws in the regulation of our industrial food industry; however there have not been many steps towards stricter regulations due to the power these large companies have over our government. Changes in regulation have been attempted but larger companies have pushed back against these changes that would harm their profit and efficiency. “The culture of opposition to food safety measures so permeates the beef industry that it lead, in one shocking instance, to the assassination of federal and state meat inspectors” (Nestle 28). The power of the industrial food system lies in the fact that money often controls our governmental system, not integrity. The health and wellbeing of the consumer is put at steak when profit and efficiency is valued over safety.

There are not enough laws in place protecting the rights of the consumer and too many allow large corporations to control politics. There seems to be a disconnect between the process of food production and the information that is released to the consumer. The majority of consumers are unaware of the conditions of how their stake is produced, or the control that a handful of companies have over their meal. According to Food Inc., there is an illusion of diversity in our economy when it comes to food production. There is a uniformity that comes with mass production. This can lead to many problems concerning health and the ethics of the food industry.

The industry needs to address ethical concerns. The regulations and laws regarding food production are hindering efforts to keep the consumer safe. The consumer deserves to be informed so that they can make safe and educated choices. The blame is placed on the consumer. Big businesses have too much power over legislature. Instead of looking for an alternative solution, the food industry relies on self-regulation. “Government oversight of food safety has long tended to provide far more protection to food producers than to the public” (Nestle 30). Recently with more food born illnesses being traced back to our food production system, the government has been forced to take a closer look. Part of the problem is that our government agencies like the United States Food and Drug administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture do not simply have the manpower to enforce laws and regulations.

Safety is a major concern when dealing with our food supply. Our current regulatory system is failing There are recurring outbreaks of food born illnesses, such as e-coli and salmonella every year. “According to a recent report from the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ‘There is considerable potential for contaminated animal feed ingredients to move between and within countries. This could result in widespread and rapid dissemination of a pathogen to geographically diverse animal herds and in turn, to a range of human food products” (Consumer Reports). There are many concerns ranging from the spread of pathogens, to the use of pesticides or antibiotics.

Our regulatory system is out of date. Pathogens have adapted and have grown increasingly more aggressive. This is due to the increase in the use of antibiotics in the process of raising animals for slaughter. The way that our food industry functions have changed drastically since many of the food regulation laws were passed by congress. Our governmental system and regulatory system was not prepared for bacteria to change as fast as our processing system. Changes in our society and food system have helped foster more dangerous microbial pathogens. These new strains are becoming harder to kill and resistant to antibiotics.

The reason for this change in antibiotics and pathogens is due to the fact that farmers have been adding antibiotics to animal food in order to stave off infection. This seems like a good idea in theory; however this overuse of antibiotics on otherwise healthy cows is endangering the consumer. Mass production does not have space for inconsistencies like infection and disease. Our change from traditional farming methods to mass production is due to the changes in our society. As a society we need to make sure that our regulatory system stays up to date with the consequences of new technology. “Each link in the production, preparation, and delivery of food can be a hazard to health. While technologies designed to improve the safety of the food supply hold promise, changes in food processing, products, practices, and people will continue to facilitate the emergence of foodborne pathogens into the next century” (Altekruse 291).

Since our world is ever growing and the globalization of the food industry is in full swing, the dangers of the spread of pathogens are ever present. “The trend toward greater geographic distribution of products from large centralized food processors carries a risk for dispersed outbreaks. When mass-distributed food products are inter- mittently contaminated or contaminated at a low level, illnesses may appear sporadic rather than part of an outbreak” (Altekruse 288). With widespread trade and global food production, the United States needs to do a better job of regulating the food that we allow across our borders. There have been many outbreaks that were traced back to produce that was produced in South America and other counties with less regulations.

There are many concerns that the consumer needs to think about when regarding food safety, but the blame should be directed toward the industrial food companies and the government. There needs to be stricter laws regarding food production. Even though these sources have varying levels of concerns with the food industry, it is clear that something needs to change.