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

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

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

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

[1] Food Inc

Who is on our side?

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

For just as long as we’ve been discussing our food, the question of who holds power, not only related to what we eat, but to our lives in general has been discussed. Long ago we created organized government in order to help us answer these important questions. Nowadays, we wonder if the government we helped create is really on our side in choosing what we should eat. Our government does not seem to be on our side of the argument on what we should eat.

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

The food dispute

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

While people on the other side of this debate agree that these companies are no where near innocent, they retort that it is up to us as individuals what we want to feed us and our children. This disagreement has led to the debate on organic vs. non-organic means of production.  Thousands of people have argued, with experts like Blake Hurst and Food Inc.‘s own Michael Pollan leading each side of the debate.

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

Hurst, one of the most vocal supporters of the non-organic side of the argument has made his point very clear over the past 10 years. 4 years ago he published an article named Organic Illusions to reiterate his conclusions. He believes that “Plants and animals aren’t the least bit interested in the story the farmer has to tell. They don’t care about his sense of social justice, the size of his farm, or the business model that he has chosen. Plants don’t respond by growing better if the farmer is local, and pigs don’t care much about the methods used in the production of their daily ration. If those inputs that animals and plants require to grow are present, plants and animals respond in pretty similar ways. That means that when organic and/or conventional farmers provide the environment necessary for growth, plants and animals respond. It would be a shock if this did not occur, and it shouldn’t really be a story at all.”

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

The Government and our Food

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

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

When we think of food what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Is it how well it’ll taste once we cook it? Maybe if you sauté it the juices will be more vibrant and ready to be served for dinner? Or are you more concerned with the quality and nutrition of your food? Whether an experienced foodie or a newcomer to the ways of the food world these are all question’s you’ll most likely have at some point while dining. Yet do we as consumers of all of these delicacies ever truly wonder what it is that we’re eating, where did it come from, who do we have to thank for the steak or lettuce on our plate? The food industry has been on the burn for many years but it was only but until the past 10 years that we’ve seen a cry for awareness. There is a silent battle going on behind the supermarket lines and it’s time for the rest of America to know what’s going on. Documentaries such as Food Inc. have been filmed to show us the “nitty gritty” of the food industry, its ups and downs but mainly its downs. Whether it is the sky rocketing increase in diabetes within this country or how our economic status influences the quality of our food. The documentary never shy’s away at showing us the grotesque and the stats behind conventional farming. There is also the abuse towards animals and the conditions in which they are thrown. Of course this is just one of many outlets that have reported about the food industry and it’s tricks of the trade. From an article about food safety and government regulation by Nestle to Consumer Reports tackling the meat industry in their article titled “You are what they eat”. There is a plethora of information and arguments when it comes to the double-edged sword that is our food industry. So where should you as a consumer stand amongst all of this chaos? Where do you begin your journey to educate yourself on what goes into your food and what expectations are reasonable and which one’s aren’t? The bigger companies that claim they run the food business in the best manner to the local farmers who would have you boycott these systems in lieu to their suffering and their animals suffering, there is no real right or wrong. There is only change. Our system needs to change but maybe not in the way farmers and big bill industries would like, nor how the FDA would have it regulated. The same way we value teaching history to our children and value debating in college settings is the same way we should value educating ourselves in what goes on with the food we eat. What’s meant to go in our bodies and what doesn’t as the title of consumer reports article suggests “You are what they eat” but can’t we also say “We are what we think?” Knowledge is power; it can build something up or tearing something down. So maybe it’s time to stop believing everyone has your best interests in hand and to start taking action on what you believe is best for you. You are not just an average citizen but the person who buys the meat, the vegetables, the person who keeps the system afloat, the consumer and one of the  billions of decision makers of how our world works.

What goes into a $1 MacDonald’s Big Mac? Well, according to McDonalds’ website, it includes two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions on a sesame-seed bun. Now let’s look a little closer and focus on just the cheese. Its main ingredients are milk, cream, water, cheese cultures and cheese enzymes. Looks good. The list doesn’t stop there. For creamy, even melting, there is sodium citrate and sodium phosphate in the cheese. For texture and flavor, there’s salt, citric acid, lactic acid, acetic acid, sodium pyrophosphate and natural flavor. For consistent color, there is “color added”. For slice separation, there is soy lecithin and to prevent spoilage, there is sorbic acid. This is all that goes into one tiny slice of American cheese. Let us put aside how over-processed our food has become. The bigger question is, how can all that work culminate in a burger that cost a mere dollar? Is the system actually so streamlined and efficient or are there a multitude of costs that are deliberately hidden from us?

In 2008, the documentary Food Inc shocked the public by revealing what goes into their food. It also exposed the laws and regulations that allow for such horrors to happen. While it seems like food policies are drafted with our interests in mind, it is actually the opposite. Many of the policies protect the food industry instead, placing blinkers on the consumer by deliberately withholding information and creating the illusion of cheap, safe food. Food industries fight almost desperately against any sort of transparency. They fought against calorie information, trans fat, country-of-origin labelling for meats and GMO labelling. Veggie Libel Laws make it against the law to criticize the food industry’s foods. In Colorado, you can actually go to prison for it. The Cheeseburger bills makes it incredibly hard for consumers to sue food producers for enabling obesity. The FDA and the USDA have such a convoluted division of responsibilities yet does not actually have the power to recall food products. The list goes on, but flies under the radar.

All this is enabled by the practice of regulatory capture. Many FDA and USDA officials were former employees of these big food companies that the organization regulates. Monsanto’s former executive Michael R. Taylor is Commissioner of the FDA. Margaret Miller was a chemical laboratory supervisor at Monsanto but her job in the FDA now involves approving reports like those she wrote. This conflict of interest has resulted in heavy subsidies on the fast food industries that feed the big meat and corn industries. A meal at MacDonald’s isn’t actually cheaper than a healthy, home cooked meal. It is heavily subsidized to make it appear so. Policies subsidize the ingredients, the factories and even the workers who put together these cheap burgers. Over half of all fast food workers are enrolled in one or more public assistance programs, getting 7 billion dollars of aid. This enables fast food companies to pay minimum wage and further subsidizes their costs. As these atrocities pile up, it creates the illusion that unhealthy fast food is cheaper, tastier and by far more desirable than healthy food and creates a conundrum for the poor whose financial strains denies them the power of choice.

The individual consumer can, of course, influence this. This is where the business oriented system works in the customer’s favor. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. But governmental policies are making it very hard to choose, for those who have a choice. It is not enough to educate the public if we are barraged by attempts to un-educate enabled by the very organizations that are supposed to protect us. Eating better needs to start from the policies, or even by ensuring that food safety laws are really ensuring only that.

Everyone has experienced a case of food poisoning before. But no one ever blames the government agencies or food production companies for it. No, they were just unlucky and had something that wasn’t clean. But what if you made dinner one night, and all your guests got sick. Are you to blame for opening a package of ready to eat organic spinach for your salad, and organic steak that you bought from Wegmans? In the heat of the moment, you are to blame. But trace it back to where the food came from, and ask yourself the question again. The answer should be no, you are not to be blamed. The government agencies in charge of the food industries are the ones to blame.

This topic has been resurfaced in recent news in cases like Chipotle, where they claim to have ethically raised poultry and non-GMO foods. As of January 27, 2016 there was a total case of 55 people who were infected with the outbreak strain of E.Coli O26 in Chipotle restaurants. As a popular fast food chain, they took actions immediately to expand the testing of fresh produce, raw meat and dairy items prior to restocking the restaurants. Luckily they are taking the next step in making their food safer for the consumer. Other cases, aren’t so generous, and will fight to keep doing what their doing, and that is keeping the consumer clueless as to where the food they put in their mouth has been and has gone through.

In films like Food Inc, they expose different cases in which food has been a big issue. One of the big cases that were talking about was Kevin’s story. Kevin was a little boy, who was full of life, and on a family vacation decided to chow down on a burger. After returning home from his vacation, Kevin’s mother reported seeing blood in Kevin’s stool and also noticed that he has a slight fever. They went to the doctor but were sent home. The next day, Kevin’s condition was significantly worse than it had ever been, and went to the hospital again for dehydration and bloody stools. His kidneys started failing, and they were given the diagnosis that he had contracted E.coli O157:H7. He passed away. Kevin’s sister and father were also tested positive for E.coli O157:H7. They brought this case to court, but they did not have enough evidence. Later on, the same company had a random test, and were positive for E.coli O157:H7, and the PFGE pattern (or DNA) for Kevin’s E. coli matched the PFGE pattern of the recalled meat. However this was still not enough evidence to get justice for Kevin. What happened to Kevin was very tragic, and the scary thing is it can honestly happen to anyone.

Kevin had it very bad, but his sister and father who also ate the contaminated meat just had one uncomfortable bowel movement. This is very common. Most frequent cases of these illnesses are viruses and species of bacteria, but most episodes are never reported to health authorities. The most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of food borne disease in the United States is 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths. Today, food production has created more promising conditions for bacteria and viruses to breed. Infected animals excrete pathogens in their feces, and other animals and plants come across the infected feces and then we proceed to eat it. Some pathogens survive cooking, stomach acid and other bodily functions and these pathogens can multiply and do much worse things to your body. On top of these pathogens, plants are genetically modified and animals are fed ridiculous foods, both are done in efforts of making the food bigger and more appealing to the consumer.

When you see a fat cow, you immediately think that he is fed proper meals, and grown to be big and fat and healthy. You would also think that the cows are hanging out on nice big grass fields and eating grass like they portray in some commercials. However that is certainly not the case. Cows are fed things as ludicrous as chicken feathers, because they apparently contain a high source of protein. On top of that all animals, including cows, chicken, pigs and even fish are fed corn. Corn comes in abundance and fattens up animals quick. As casual as that sounds that’s backtrack for a minute. Cows are fed corn, when they are supposed to be eating grass. Cows are unable to digest corn. When they eat corn, it can upset their digestive system. Cattle create a lot of gas, which they usually release, but when their diet is high in starch and low in roughage, a layer of foamy slime forms in their great food-processing tank. In a web article called “ What happens in the stomach of a corn-fed cows” it states that a corn diet can also generate acidosis. Unlike our highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of cattle stomachs is neutral. Corn makes then unnaturally acidic. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and drool, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system. A cow that has a poor immune system due to eating corn, which is suppose to make them fat and appealing, is being served to us. The extent to which the affects the cow has that can be passed onto humans through consumption are still unsure of, but it surely does not sound okay.

Despite obvious concerns of the food industry and the impacts it has on our health, food industries are doing little to nothing about it. We are left with a constant mystery of where our food has been.

Throughout the course of time, food has been an everlasting staple to all species. It is a reason for people to get together and communicate, it’s a reason to celebrate and relax, and it’s a necessity in order for the body to be properly nourished. However, over the past century or so, food has become less of a gathering tool, and less of a reason to get together, and it has become a way to make money. In the centuries prior to this one, home-cooked meals, fresh food, and delicious ingredients were all a staple of the American household. People would invite their friends and family over, cook food, and relish the opportunity to enjoy each others company. However, as stated above, the last 60 or 70 years has brought us a massive change in society that now sees food as only a commodity in order to profit. Of course, with every statement, there are limitations. Food is still used by many people, both in this country, and around the world, to relax and enjoy, however as a whole, there have been a plethora of reasons as to why we are starting to see food as simply a way for large corporations and farmers to make money. In the documentary Food, Inc., the narrator discussed how the rise of the fast food industry and the “conveyer belt/mass production” system created an atmosphere that changed the landscape of food production forever. At that point, growing food became less and less about growing fresh products that tasted great, and more about growing and using pesticides to mass produce things that could be given to chains like McDonalds, who could then turn around and give these large companies a major profit. When the food market became more about creating money and supplying large amounts of both meat and produce to giant companies, rather than allowing small time farmers to create fresh food that could be better quality, the entire dynamic changed. Now, we live in a society much different than the one half a century ago. While it seems that our food is relatively easy to purchase as a consumer, we are blissfully unaware of the difficulties and struggles that go into processing our food, as well as the harsh conditions that many farmers must go through in order to take care of their families. Although, as I stated above, we live in a society that puts a greater emphasis on quantity than quality, there are still farmers out there that are trying to stay with old traditions and create good quality food; however, those farmers will most likely either be eaten up by the large companies, or unable to compete with them because of the price difference. It is why we see such a problem in today’s food industry, and there only seems to be a handful of people rising up to address the problem head on.

One of the main issues we face today in the food industry is safety of the food that we are growing and consuming. We have had a handful of foodborne illnesses over the course of the last 30 years, however, people, in general, don’t seem to be very concerned about the fact that they may be eating tarnished food. They simply expect the government to look out for them and “vet” the food before it arrives in their refrigerator, however in many instances, that is just not the case. The government may not be impartial, first of all, and may have some of the large food corporations in their back pocket, but even more terrifying than that is the peoples’ unawareness to the potential problems that foodborne illnesses can create. Marian Nestle, a professor of sociology and food studies at New York University, gives us a perfect anecdote to sum up American’s ignorance to the harsh realities of foodborne illnesses. She says in here article “The Politics of Foodborne Illness” that she and her family were at a dinner party in the 1970’s, and many people got sick afterwards. Now, instead of going to the doctor and making sure that they were truly okay, or calling the company that supplied the foods they ate and asking them if there had been any other reported outbreaks of illness, the people simply took Advil, Tylenol, and within a few days there were back to normal. Now, while it is definitely a positive that nobody got seriously hurt, or worse, died, it speaks to how uninformed and unaware these people were to the serious dangers of food. Now, that was 40 some years ago, however the true message really hasn’t changed. People simply expect the government to have their best interest in mind and to monitor everything that they are putting into their mouths, and that simply isn’t the case time and time again. Thus, Nestle argues that there needs to be more government intervention, as well as more self-teaching when it comes to people and their food.

As discussed above, consumer awareness is a major part of creating a society with good food that is both tasty, and safe. While it should be the job of the government to make sure that people are eating safe food, we also need to encourage a society of people who understand the nuances of the food industry and how to spot food that is both safe and unsafe.

One of the big arguments and debates in today’s food society revolves around whether or not organic food is truly better than you. On one hand, companies like Chipotle thrive off of being organic, and their entire brand revolves around organic food. On the other hand, however, many people, including Blake Hurst, tend to argue that the entire organic “fad” is simply a marketing tool used by companies to sell things at a more expensive price and to create a submarket inside the healthy food section that allows people to think they are being healthy and paying a higher price for it, when in reality, that is simply not the case.

Elizabeth Quezada

WRT 205

Professor Phillips

February 22nd 2016

Conversation on Food Politics & Safety: Choices

You can very easily go onto today’s favorite search engine and type in, “Are GMOs harmful?” or “Is organic food really that much better?” into the search bar and pull up some quick and dirty answers to those questions. Really though, you are just a concerned consumer being tossed into the large, messy bowl of food politics and safety. You’ll find a mesh of articles telling you what the author thinks and a healthy dose of statistics thrown your way if you’re lucky. Believe it or not,  food safety and politics does not just pertain to the consumers health based needs! Money, the environment are a huge portion of food safety and the political sphere represents delicious three course meal you can’t pull your eyes from. When it comes to food safety, I belong to the team that’s pro-labeling. I believe that despite the benefits of either side, consumers deserve the right to know what they choose to put in their system.

What do people have to say about this discourse?

Some individuals argue between the efficiency and benefits of either organic or conventional farming while others argues that consumers should have a choice within the food system. Food Inc., a documentary that argues against GMOs, questions the food system attacks the opaqueness of the system. “Do you know where your food comes from?” This documentary attempts to bring forth information for their audience to process while ultimately trying to get you on their side of the argument. The director of the film, Robert Kenner does a fantastic job at distributing information and using the medium of film to their advantage and he also really stretches out the conversation that finds its way to our dinner tables every night. While the film does give their viewers a mouthful of information, it is heavily biased in arguing more for one side instead of bringing out the facts and letting you decide what side you want to eat grass from. One of my favorite pieces to read in regards to the issues around food safety and politics,  “Organic Illusions,” written by a farmer, Blake Hurst, suggests that though the government cannot afford a form of organic agriculture, they can afford to provide a system with choices. However, he does not present his claim in a helpful or resourceful manner. Carrying a heavily sarcastic tone and providing a much more entertaining read that can be read throughout the masses, Hurst maintains a “Who cares about organic or conventional farming?” attitude and suggests without any real traceable sources, that what really matters in this complex food system is not a romanticized “version of agriculture”(Hurst) but “a food system that provides lots of choices,” (Hurst). Unfortunately, as entertaining as he may be, he does not provide enough credible information to really let his audience decide the importance of conventional agriculture versus organic agriculture. He attacks organic farming more than he complains about farming in general.

Although I do understand the benefits of either side, I think the two styles of agriculture can exist together but the government could afford to be a little more transparent, less sketchy when it came to interviews (Food Inc.) Truthfully, labeling the food at your local grocery store is more about allowing the consumer to be more aware and informed of their decisions. Nearly 50 nations worldwide require that all GE foods be labeled as such (Dahl), so what’s the big deal? California tried to pass the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act back in November of 2012 (Dahl) and had it been passed, California would have been the first state to require the labeling of food products. The bill sounds pretty until you know what it really does and then you wonder, what’s the point? The bill would have exempted “meat, dairy, and other products from animals that were themselves genetically engineered. It would have also exempted food sold in restaurants and alcohol,” (Dahl). Though it wouldn’t have proved as effective as it could have been, this was considered a step forwards in the food revolution. Consumers are getting more fed up as “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal,” (Nestle). Only 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations (Nestle). That number seems incredibly low for a population as large as the American population. The statistics speak for themselves here, how safe do you really think your food really is? Go ahead, type in E Coli and Salmonella outbreaks in your search bar and determine just how frequent they are. Consumer safety should always be the government’s priority but money allows illness and corruption to really slip through the cracks,  just ask your local farmer.

While many like Hurst believe that a romanticized version of farming would be too costly, I do agree that labeling for consumer health reasons proves to be a solution everyone could be happier with. There’s evidence according to Dahl and his source, Hansen,  to suggest a connection between GE Crops and allergenicity, which provides more than enough reason to label foods. Data from the Centers of Disease control and Prevention show an 18% increase in reported food allergy cases among children between 1997 and 2007 (Dahl), that alone proves to be alarming as a consumer myself. Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, suggests a theoretical example of how tracking health risks would work: “If you take a gene from the kiwifruit, put it into a tomato and the tomato gets turned into sauce for your pizza, and there’s an allergic reaction…this is not like [allergy concerns associated with] conventional foods because the problem is going to for one particular [bio-engineered modification]. How are you going to figure out unless it’s labeled? You can’t and that’s why so many countries have labeling,” (Hansen), except us of course. There should always be a choice presented for consumers, for health–for ethical reasons, our government after all is supposed to be for the people and we made that choice, didn’t we?

Sources:

• “You are what they eat,” Consumer Reports, 2005

• Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions – AEI.” AEI. The American, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

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

• Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Movie One, 2008.

• Dahl, Richard. “To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods.” Environ Health Perspect Environmental Health Perspectives 120.9 (2012). Jstor. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

America has a growing problem and a problem with growing. What’s growing? Food. The problem? How it’s being grown, who’s in charge of growing it, and how’s it’s getting into our stomachs. In 2008, Robert Kenner put out a film called Food Inc., featuring testimony from food and industry experts like Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, farmers, and representatives from the meat industry. Food Inc. sought to illuminate some of the atrocities that go on behind the scenes in the American and global food industry, from farm to table so to speak. The biggest problem that we face is that there are, as Pollan says in the film, only a handful of large corporations guiding how food is grown, packed, shipped, and marketed. Not only that, but there are government officials working in the USDA, FDA, congress, and other branches that are out to represent the desires of these faceless corporations and not the people that need the most protection; the average American. What’s worse is that what we do to our food in the US has a global impact. The bottom line is that corporate greed is undercutting food safety and the very concept of what food is, and this has started to snowball out of control.

Let’s think of your average cow, raised for slaughter. These cows, which can weight up to 2400 pounds, are confined in spaces where they often can’t even turn around if they can even stand up at all. Add to that the fact that they’re often standing ankle deep in pools of their own feces, and you’ve already got a good idea what kinds of problems are bound to happen once you get the beast to the slaughterhouse. Now, take the cows natural food source which it has evolved to consume — that’s grass, in case you didn’t know — and replace it with something they’d never have started eating unless humans were dishing it out. That something is corn. Cows are ruminants, meaning they’ve got stomachs designed to ferment the grass they’d naturally eat so that they can digest it. When that grass is replaced with something like corn, their stomachs are thrown for a loop and they start to produce E. coli. Now, you’ve got this cow hanging out in crap, growing E. coli in its gut, and it’s finally gotten fat enough to warrant killing.

The cow gets crammed onto a truck and brought to a plant where it’s systematically murdered and parted out. According to a Consumer Reports article, the meat from one cow can be spread out over eight tons of ground beef. Remember, that cow likely had E. coli, and now it’s getting spread into eight tons of beef. And that beef is spread all over the US, Canada, Mexico. The way that we, the consumers, have been taught to consume means that we’re constantly seeking the quickest, easiest, and cheapest sustenance we can most of the time. We’re a nation that can afford the Dollar Menu but not a head of broccoli and the time to prepare it. We’ve been duped into thinking that the stuff at the fast food drive-thru is a necessary evil, and we’re paying a toll with our lives. Not only is the food absurdly unhealthy, but the industry that produces it is abusing everyone in the chain from farm to table.

The human and societal costs of our current food system are too high to be sustainable. Michael Hurst, a well-meaning farmer, claims that a national switch to an all-organic food production system would actually tax our land and people even more so than the current model, one that relies on GMO’s and persistent chemical pesticides. He claims that there would be such a large amount of land needed that it would be impossible to feed the US on it’s available arable land. He also states that people would need to leave other industries to work in farming and food processing. Unfortunately, he doesn’t provide any evidence to support these claims. What he also doesn’t do is bother to mention the ill-effects of persistent chemical pesticides that are used in conventional farming. Pesticides can leach into the water table and affect the groundwater supply in areas surrounding farms. Run-off can reach rivers and lakes and negatively impact ecosystems of some of our other food sources (fish, for example).

The human element is addressed by Food Inc., Consumer Reports, and Marion Nestle, although not completely. Most of what is addressed by the authors and experts of these pieces are due to foodborne illness or other persistent dietary problems like diabetes or malnutrition. What’s missing is a discussion of the horrible mistreatment of food industry employees, from those picking our fruits and veggies, to the people packing and handling them in various factories and plants, and the people that are turning those products into something we want to eat; the foodservice employees. It’s no secret that there’s a huge gap in the pay of corporate owners of food conglomerates and the people out there picking, planting, raising, slaughtering, packing, and preparing. Farmers are often horribly underpaid, especially if they are undocumented or illegal migrant workers. Hours are long, and pickers are paid by the pound, not by the hour. When this is the case, a person may resort to relieving themselves right where they stand so as to be able to get back to work as quickly as possible.

The mistreatment of the worker goes all the way to the restaurants and fast food joints that most Americans rely on for many of their meals. Foodservice employees are only just starting to get justice, with many areas offering a living wage of $15 an hour. Having worked for years in the industry, I can’t say that there truly is a fair price for our labor. But $15 is a good start. When foodservice employees are working for current minimum wages, however, we’re often forced to go to work even when we’re exhausted, stressed, and sick. We can’t afford to take a day off to recuperate from the flu or a cold when we aren’t even earning enough to feed us while we work 40 hours a week. One can see how this adds up to a further unsafe and unhealthy food industry.

While we would think government agencies has it in their best interest to protect us, consumers, humans and animals in what we eat; it is evident that this is not the case due to outdated policy and the overlooks in our food system. Although agencies such as the FDA and USDA have a set of jurisdictions, they do not exercise their authority in situations that matter the most. A huge flaw within the system starts with the FDA and their approval of corn, feathers, and antibiotics in animal feed.

This is a topic that concerns all consumers in the United States. We often overlook even such issues because we place our trust in the government and believe that they serve in our best interest because after all we did elect these officials. This article will take you behind the scenes of the food industry and the United States’ government oversight and outdated policy on the topic of food safety.

According to Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at NYU, prior to the late 1800’s, the U.S government took no responsibility for food safety. They were forced to do so by public demands that sparked from journalists frequent visits to slaughterhouses who shared their experiences. This outraged caused Congress to pass a Meat Inspection Act in 1890 that authorized inspection of salt pork, bacon, and pigs intended for export. A drastic blow to the food industry and the government came in 1906 when Upton Sinclair published his expose in the meat industry, specifically the Chicago stockyards. Following the confirmation of these alligations proposed by Sinclair, Congress immediately passed two separate pieces of legislation: the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, both in 1906. Interesting how secret investigations have to be done and publicized to force our government to want to get its act together isn’t it? This is only the start of the problem.

The Food and Drug Administration formed in 1906, the same year Sinclair released his expose, is a federal agency responsible for protecting public health by assuring safety and security of human and animal drugs, biological products, medical services, OUR NATION’S FOOD SUPPLY (this includes food additives), cosmetics and products that admit radiation. Consumer Reports article, “You are what they eat,” does not hold back and immediately claims that the “federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply.” They even assert that some regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection. The article informs us that the FDA delegated much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70% of feed-company and renderer inspections. This means that the FDA hands over its responsibility to assure not only our safety but animal safety over to state legislatures. While 70 to 90% of cattle and chicken feed is plant based: corn and soybean meal, the remaining 10 to 30% remains questionable. Processed feathers and poultry litter are acceptable sources of protein in cattle feed according to the FDA. Farmed fish may be given rendered meat, bone and feather meal. The ultimate goal is to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible. Also included in feed are medications given routinely to animals even the healthy ones in order to boost growth and minimize infections. Nestle also takes a stance on mediciations, specifically antibitoics. Antibiotics are chemicals that prevent bacteria from reproducing, when added to animal food or water they tend to grow faster and need less feed. Antibiotic-resistant baateria survives and multiplies causing potential health problems for our animals. In 1977, the FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed but was overruled by Congress under pressure received from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and makers of the drug. One might think to go organic but what does “organic” really mean?

In his piece, “Organic Illusions,” Blake Hurst, Missouri Farm Bureau’s Board of Directors president acknowledges the organic process. According to a Stanford study organic foods were less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, while organic foods were higher in E.Coli. E.Coli is able to accept genes from related bacterial species to form “stable variants” that can pass the borrowed genes along to other bacteria as they divide and multitply. The E. Coli variant known as O157:H7 is especially dangerous, it picks up Shigella gene for a toxin that destroys  red blood cells and includes a syndrome of bloddy diarrhea, kidney failure, and death (Marian Nestle, “Resisting Food Safety, 41). He questions whether the organic food consumer’s purchase is actually organic because there is no testing done to check. He argues organic foods are labeled organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures.Yet again, here is evidence of government oversight where they trust that producers are honest when they say that their foods are organic because of procedures that were followed. Who is to say if these foods are honestly organic? How will consumers know if these producers are telling them the truth or robbing them for their buck?

Nestle argues that by switching to hay there is a 1% chance of an E. Coli presence, which is more appealing to the health on consumer. Meat producers are not likely to favor these approaches because they are concerned about putting the maximum weight on their animals, and drug producers are still concerned with selling antibiotics to meat producers. Consumer reports argues that animals being raised and fed organic feed would be safer for our food supply in some ways, but there is no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden variety bacteria including salmonella. The alternatives are presented, it is just a matter of producers being willing to accept them.

Should the FDA consider a new proposal for the restriction of animal feed? Or on a simplier note, is the FDA worthy of our trust? 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. They only conduct 5,000 inspections annually, visited less than 2% ofthe places under their jurisdiction and inspected less than 1%  of imported foods prior to 2001.

Pierce Noonan

Prof. Amy Barone

WRT205

1000 word draft

Opening

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

Not only does the government and food industries neglect their flawed work, but consumers are being punished with Food borne illnesses like E. coli and salmonella. E. coli is a bacteria that forms from fecal matter and is proven to be harmful and in some cases fatal. From Food Inc., expert Barbara Kowalcyk lost her 2 and half year old son to this deadly disease. This is a loss of life because of the lack of moral and sustainability in the food system. Along with the loss of life to her son Kevin, E. coli breakouts across the US have been sprouting including the most recent Chipotle Mexican food chain incident. According to the FDA website, “The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) along with state and local officials are investigating two separate outbreaks of E. coli O26 infections that have been linked to food served at Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants in several states.” According to this credible website, as of January 27, 2016, the CDC reported a total of 55 infected people with 21 reported hospitalizations. This along with all of the small cases of other food borne illnesses that aren’t reported are a major issue. How can we eat something if we are not 100 percent sure it is healthy enough to sustain a healthy life cycle? E. coli merits extra attention because it shows how well the food system and society changes and how to provide new opportunities for the spreading of disease through food. From an article by Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, “Resisting Food Safety,” “E. coli infections originate from farm animals, and such animals increasingly harbor this variant.” Running back to the original topic of federal oversight; where the food is produced, is where the problem holds and turning the other way from such problems result in loss of life and lack of trust in the food production process.

Not only is this disease formed at the hands of the producers watch, but the ingredients these farmers give their animals are producing other diseases as well. From the Consumer Reports article, mad-cow disease is brought up and it is explained that such an illness is transferred up the food chain. From this article, a protein known as prions, “can be malformed and infect cud-chewing animals with mad cow disease.” This illness is spread throughout the community it started in and eventually infecting other organisms beyond that community. Food borne illness is a problem that effects the consumer because producers don’t provide us healthy food.

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

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

Closing