Often times the journey that our food takes may seem simple taking it from the farm to our table, it is much more complex than that. The food arrives to our tables after it makes its way through a complex network of farms, slaughterhouses, transport systems, processing plants, and then finally to the grocery stores where we buy our food. In addition to all of this there is also a bureaucratic environment that complicates the process of getting the food from the farm to our tables even more difficult.

While the text argues that there needs to be more government regulations in regards to the handling of the food we eat, my own view is that the government does not have enough resources to do so, nor the power to do so because of the lobbying done by the industrial food complex. The United States government relies upon two agencies to thoroughly inspect the food that we as consumers eat. These two agencies are the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration(FDA). The USDA is tasked with inspecting and regulating the meats being processed at the slaughterhouses, the carcasses of animals, as well as poultry. Whereas the FDA is responsible for regulating drugs consumed by both humans and animals, tobacco, the safe and responsible transportation of food, and the additives that are put into food. Though these two agencies have different responsibilities, they are faced with the same issue, a stunning lack of resources to effectively complete the task they are given. The federal government employs about “700 FDA inspectors [who] must oversee 30,000 food 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). Similarly to this account, the USDA “has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments –and– 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”(Nestle). Due to the tremendous responsibility that these organizations are tasked with, food that is not fit for human consumption often slips through the proverbial cracks and onto the dinner table.

Throughout the process of getting the food from the farm to the table, it becomes exposed to certain substances that can cause detrimental effects on human health. One particular foodborne illness that is common is the E. Coli virus. E. Coli bacteria is found in the digestive tracts of livestock, it becomes exposed to the consumer when the bacteria laden manure is used to fertilize crops. Though there is no way to eradicate the E. Coli bacteria found in the digestive tract of livestock, there is a way to reduce the chance of having food tainted by the bacteria, and that is the growing system utilized by the farmer. According to Blake Hurst there are two farming systems, those being the conventional approach and the organic approach. The conventional approach involves the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in order to help the plant grow and remain healthy. On the other hand, the organic method does not use such strong pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic alternatives. After detailing the differences between the different farming methods he then goes on to say “organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in e. coli”(Hurst).

The issue of food safety recently garnered national attention when the popular fast food restaurant Chipotle recently had an E. Coli outbreak in some of their locations. The Center for Disease Control found that there were two different outbreaks of E. Coli. The first outbreak was much larger than the second one and “55 people in 11 states”(NPR) whereas the second outbreak “infected 5 people in Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Dakota”(NPR). Another thing that contributes to the issue of food safety is the food that livestock consumes before being slaughtered. In a report published by Consumer Report it was found that “10 percent to 30 percent of feed can differ radically from what cows and poultry would eat in their natural habitat”(Consumer Report). The purpose of doing so is that a farmer can fatten up their livestock in the most rapid and cost effective manner. However, this does come at a price, the difference in dietary substanance often has adverse health effects on the animal which in turn leads to the increased of foodborne illness on the consumer’s end.

Due to the attention that this food safety crisis caused, there has been an increased call for the government to step in and introduce stricter regulations regarding the safety of the food that we consume. As previously the government already employs two food regulatory agencies, those being the FDA and the USDA, however, they do not have the resources to effectively protect the general public. Though the government has tried to increase its regulatory power, special interest groups and the large agricultural companies lobby and try to prevent the federal government from being able to enact harsher regulations and legislation. The 2008 documentary regarding the U.S. agricultural system, Food Inc., reveals that during the Bush administration several of his appointed leaders were part of the special interest groups who would have suffered had tougher regulations been enacted. For example, the head of the FDA during his presidency, Lester M. Crawford Jr. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. In addition to this, the appointed chief of  USDA James F. Fitzgerald was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington. Coinciding with this, in 1998 meat and poultry associations used their influence by suing the USDA into stripping them of their power to shut down food processing plants if they repeatedly failed microbial testing done by the USDA.

Clearly the journey our food takes from the farm to our table is far more complex than what it seems. The journey displays the complex relationship between the industrial food complex, government regulatory agencies, and the special interest groups who are trying to get their agenda pushed to the forefront of public attention.

Works Cited:

Nestle, Marian. “Resisting Food Safety.” (n.d.): 1-19. Print.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions – AEI.” AEI. N.p., 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Kennedy, Merrit. “E. Coli Outbreaks At Chipotle Restaurants ‘Appear To Be Over,’ CDC Says.” NPR. NPR, 01 Feb. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

You Are What They Eat. Rep. N.p.: Consumer Report, n.d. Print.

Food, Inc. Movie One, 2008. DVD.

Farm fresh, organic, anti-GMO. These are all key words that pop out to any consumer when they are shopping in the grocery store. But how natural and safe is the food we eat? For some, it is shocking that here in the US, with all of our regulations and restrictions that food is produced the way it is. Think the government has control over the food industry? Wrong. Follow the money. It will lead right to multinational corporations who are the ones controlling food production. Several authors have articulated their own views on food production in their own publications, with arguments varying from whether organic or conventional farming is better and food borne illnesses, but all noting somewhere that these problems come from a lack of government control.

One of the biggest issues with food production in the US is where the power lies, and it does not lie in the government’s hands. Marion Nestle, an author and NYU professor argues in her publication, “Resisting Food Safety”, that the government needs to intervene more in the food production process. In the 1970’s the CDC began conducting studies about food borne illnesses to find out how big of a problem they really are. Their results, not enough evidence to warrant any major policy changes. One of the biggest reasons for their results is many people do not report when they get food poisoning, they think it is just something that happens from time to time. Are you kidding me? The fact that people accept that is why the food industry continues to have problems with quality control. People seem to be assuming that they were the only one who got sick from eating that food, whereas in reality thousands of others could have gotten sick too, because an entire line of food that was produced could have been infected with a food borne illness. Now granted, this study was done 40 years ago, more people today could realize how big of an issue food borne illnesses are. However, it should not be solely up to consumers to make reports, the FDA should be cracking down on food producers. But as Nestle states, this is another area where problems lie. The FDA only has about 700 food inspectors nation wide and are tasked with overseeing 30,000 food producers, 128,000 grocery stores, 785,000, 1.5 million vending machines, and oh yeah, all the food imported into the US. What lamebrain in Washington said, yeah that’s humanly possible. All of these places are supposed to be inspected annually, and with the nearly nonexistent number of inspectors, the FDA is only able to check about 2% of these places annually. Fantastic! In fact, in another article, “You Are What they Eat”, by Consumer Reports “loopholes still allowed certain risky feedstuffs to be fed to cattle and their ruminants…‘the FDA does not know the full extent of industry compliance’” (CR 29). This quotation shows that the FDA does not have a great handle on what goes on in the food industry and neither does the government because food manufacturers are able to get away with giving potentially disease infested feed to animals and if the FDA is not able to inspect producers, then people will continue to get sick and the government still will not be able to do much without sufficient evidence. These articles and statistics are dated so when looking at an article written in 2009, the picture of control in the food industry becomes a little nicer. In a 2009 article written by Common Dreams, it says that the Obama administration is in the process of investigating Monsanto, a seed company that provides seed to nearly all farmers in the US, for anticompetitive activity. Basically, this means that Monsanto has become a monopoly in the seed market. Finally, after years of bowing down to the food industry the government is taking action. The only question is how long will this last?

In addition to the government not a firm grasp on the activities of multinational food companies, they also do not have any way of testing organic foods. In an article written by Blake Hurst, he claims that no testing is done on foods with organic labels to see if they are in fact organic and the producer followed all the guidelines. Now, Hurst’s article needs to be taken with a grain of salt because the man has no sources, he just sort of rambles on about his own beliefs about the food industry, while once or twice mentioning some Stanford study, but never giving real data. However, if Hurst’s claim if true, then lack of testing is a major issue. Hurst claims that the reason for organic food’s success is due to marketing and people view organic food as healthier for them. The major issue here is if people think that what they are buying is better for them, but no testing is being done, and then consumers are being misled. If government testing is required on organic, foods, not all because that would be impossible, but testing of certain batches of food produced, then food companies will not be able to get away with selling something misleading. While some argue that organic food offers no real health benefits, according to farmer Joel Salatin in the documentary Food Inc., the food he produces contains considerably less bacteria and chemicals than food produced by major companies. And he was almost shut down because all of his food production takes place in the open air, instead of a much healthier disease infested factory. In Salatin’s case, the government is actually trying to shut down the wrong person, because of his methods. Another prime example of the government believing the way major food companies produce is the safest and best way. If the government can start taking control over the food industry rather than just seemingly letting companies do what they want and not really having consequences, then food may actually become safer.

Ultimately, government control is necessary for safer and better food. As shown by the authors and documentary, the government does not have the control over the food industry that it needs to. From lack of FDA employment to allowing producers to give potentially bacteria infested feed to their animals and not testing organic foods. This lack of involvement means more consumers could get sick and food producers can continue to do what they do without consequence. Government involvement is just the first step in producing safer food.

Be sure to post your draft on our Expressions class site AND be sure to “check” the box for your class time (i.e. MW 12:45 or MW 2:15 or MW 3:45).