Food, Feed, and Failure: The Shortcomings of the Food Industry

Michael Banks- June 6, 2016Foodborne illnesses pose perhaps the greatest immediate threat to the average consumer. It’s estimated that every year in the United States there are “76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths” all due to foodborne disease. Marion Nestle, Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, even comments in her book, Resisting Food Safety, on how “such numbers undoubtedly underestimate the extent of the problem”. With astounding numbers such as these one might think that everything humanly possible is being done to prevent foodborne illness. Unfortunately, this isn’t true, and that responsibility has been thrust upon us, the consumer.

There is a multitude of government agencies assigned to protect food industry consumers such as the FDA and USDA, but an overall lack of organization and concern for consumer health has put us at risk. The consumer has been at the mercy of industrialized food for nearly a century and it is worse now than ever. It is up to the consumer to enact change and revolutionize the food industry.

Let’s start at the beginning. The root of the problem are foodborne illnesses themselves, so what are these illnesses and where do they come from?

Odds are the average consumer has heard of at least 1 foodborne illness. Some of the most common foodborne illnesses include Salmonella and E.coli, with Mad Cow Disease also being a serious threat. Not all foodborne illnesses are the same however. For example, contracting E.coli can lead to death while salmonella will likely make you experience stomach pains. In addition, Salmonella can cause arthritis, a far step from stomach pains, but thankfully it takes thousands of salmonella microbes in order for it to take hold in someone. Mad Cow Disease often remains among cows, but on occasion humans can contract a special form of it, which is fatal. People usually don’t think twice about what could be in their food, or figure that if there is something in what they’re eating then all they will experience are some slight pains. What many don’t realize and what they should be clearly made aware of are exactly what risks they’re taking when they take a bite of their favorite food.

Perhaps the most dangerous foodborne illness that we face currently is a specific strain of E.coli, strain O157-H7. This strain has been known to be especially deadly and is more common than Mad Cow Disease, making it a top contender for first place in a list of foodborne illnesses you really don’t want to get. Like salmonella, E.coli (including the strain O157-H7) is a bacteria which works its way into our bodies by infecting the food we eat. Nestle explains what makes O157-H7 so dangerous.

“…at some point, it picked up a Shigella gene for a toxin that destroys red blood cells and induces a syndrome of bloody diarrhea, kidney failure, and death. This toxin is especially damaging to young children” (Pg.41)

Much to our misfortune, Nestle is telling the truth. Barbara Kowalcyk, current foodborne illness prevention advocate, lost her 2 ½ year old son Kevin suddenly to E.coli O157-H7 after he ate a cooked hamburger infected with the strain. In Food Inc. we see home videos of the family vacation Kevin and his family were on. They were having fun, playing on the beach and laughing, most likely looking forward to having a family meal together later that day. They weren’t worried about whether or not their food was going to kill them, and they shouldn’t have to.  Much like the Kowalyck family most likely believed, most of the population might think that simply cooking the hamburger would kill any bacteria or viruses infecting meat. However, O157-H7 is extremely resilient, adding to its tenacity. Tragically, the Kowalyck family found this out the hard way. O157-H7 “resists heat…resists drying, can survive short exposure to acid and sometimes resists radiation and antibiotics”. Perhaps most concerning is the fact that is takes as little as fifty O517-H7 microbes to induce symptoms, noted by Nestle as “a minuscule number in bacterial terms”.

The most effective method to stopping the flow of anything is at the source. No infected animals means no infected meat which in turn means no infected consumers, so where is the source? In this case, the source is where the animals are raised and fed, feedlots.

Feedlots can be anything from enormous plots of land where thousands of cattle are held to long ‘houses’ filled to capacity with chickens or pigs. In either case, the conditions are prime for infestation. While in these feedlots, animals are forced to remain in very close proximity to each other, almost tripping over one another. Due to there being little to no space to move, animals are forced to stand in both their own and other animals’ manure for nearly the entirety of the time they spend in these feedlots. Respected food politics expert Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, explains in the Emmy winning documentary Food Inc. what this means in simple terms, “Manure gets in meat”. As it turns out, E.coli O157-H7 is transferred through feces, meaning that one infected animal can infect multitudes of other animals.

As an example of how easy this makes it for consumers to come in contact with infected meat, consider this. “Americans consume 200 pounds of meat per year/per person”, and according to health officials, “…just one infected beef carcass is sufficient to contaminate 8 tons of ground beef”! It isn’t even necessary to consume meat that’s tainted with E.coli, all it takes is contact, direct or indirect, with infected feces. It could be as simple as shaking the hand of “infected people who shed it in their feces and pass it along from unwashed hands. This makes it very important that consumers cook their meat as thoroughly as they can and that they wash their hands regularly, especially after handling meat.

Some however, such as strong industrial farming advocate Blake Hurst, directly contrast Pollan on many points. One such contrast is Hurst’s opinion that keeping animals caged is in fact the better option. Hurst himself is an industrial farmer out of Missouri and the President of the Board of Directors for the Missouri Farm Bureau. He argues that free range animals such as chickens and pigs will “increase the price of food, using more energy and water to produce the extra grain required for the same amount of meat” (Pg. 5). He may well be right, the price of food may increase, but so will our safety. Don’t you think that Kevin’s family would pay any amount of money if only the food he was eating would’ve been safe? If anything, Hurst’s reasoning simply helps to expose that industrial farming is all about getting it done cheaper and faster. In an interview with Frontline, Michael Pollan Discusses feedlots further. He recounts a personal experience he had in which he visited feedlots in Kansas. Pollan sums up his opinion of the feedlot, calling them in general “medieval cities… because they are cities in the days before modern sanitation”.

What makes matters worse is that the feed industrial farmers are feeding their cattle increases E.coli found in cows. In today’s industrial farming world, cattle are fed a primarily corn based diet. In fact, corn, in conjunction with soybeans, makes up 70% to 90% of most commercial animal feed. In Food Inc. an expert points out that if grass is fed to cattle for just a few days, replacing the corn heavy diet, then the cattle will shed 80% of E.coli in their gut. Farmers feed these foods to their cattle in order rapidly increase the growth of the animal in question, in this case cattle. The name of the game in today’s food industry is to turn out as much as you can as fast as you can for as cheap as you can do it.

The situation is indeed dire, but not only because foodborne illnesses are such a great threat. What makes this predicament even more dangerous is the lack of government action when it comes to protecting the consumer. In the government’s defense however, the system has become extremely complicated, even though it has been of their own doing. In today’s system, there are 12 different government agencies housed in six separate cabinet-level departments. The most recognizable agencies of the group are perhaps the FDA, or Food and Drug Administration, and the USDA, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Even just between these two agencies nothing is simple. For example, the USDA regulates pizza with meat toppings while the FDA regulates cheese pizza. That means that if you get a half pepperoni half cheese pizza you are involving at least two government agencies in your meal. This illustrates how even the simplest of things become more complicated with the ‘system’ that’s been put in place.

Where the real issues take place however are in the detection and resolution of food related issues. Earlier I offered some statistics on the number of hospitalizations, illnesses, and deaths related to foodborne illnesses. Those numbers seemed astronomical, but as astronomical as they were they are likely underestimated. This is because both the USDA and FDA are tasked with too much under demanding conditions. In Marion Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, she explains this subject in detail. For example, the USDA, every year, must inspect

“animals at 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 25 billion pounds of beef and 7 billion pounds of ground beef”.

In order to complete the overly demanding task of inspecting all this meat they must have countless inspectors right? Well, maybe if 7,000 inspectors is considered a countless amount. However, having 7,000 inspectors is a godsend compared to the 700 employed by the FDA. The USDA is only responsible for 20% of the food supply too, leaving the FDA with more than they could possibly handle, especially with their “minuscule” $283 million budget, which really is minuscule by government standards.

As is evident, there is a lot of room for error with regard to government inspections of food, which causes estimates of foodborne illnesses to be horrifyingly shortcoming. This may be part of the reason why these agencies are also often negligent.

Perhaps most troubling is Marion Nestle’s recounting of her observations of the FDA while working as a member of the Food Advisory Committee there for 6 years. She noticed that the FDA had an “apparent perception of food issues as troublesome and unscientific rather than as challenging problems demanding a high priority and focused attention”, and that

“they often appear to be more concerned about their own turf-or that of the industries they regulate-than about protecting the health of consumers”.

This brings us to unsavory topic of corruption. In Food Inc. investigative journalist Eric Schlossor discusses how “Regulatory agencies are being controlled by the companies they are supposed to be scrutinizing”. We also see how individuals in high government positions, including positions in agencies such as the FDA, are on boards of directors for some of the 4 big beef processing companies. This would definitely explain why it seems as though the government just isn’t as invested as it should be with consumer health. It would also explain why back in 2002 the FDA, after 4 years, still had not “acted promptly” in enforcing a feed ban that prevented cattle from consuming tainted feed that would make them sick. It is this kind of routine lax behavior that is forcing us to take matters into our own hands.

We, as consumers, must make a conscious effort to enact change in the food industry. This can be accomplished by purchasing not food produced by the industry that has a revolting disregard for our own health, but from sustainable farms that produce wholesome food. Farms such as that of Joel Salatin, who believes in producing foods based on Mother Nature and who correctly points out that we have “lost integrity and accountability of all food”. By doing so, we will show both the corporations and government that we are done buying into their deceit, leaving them no choice but to change their ways. It’s time to take back our food.

Food Safety: What is best for us?

Mario Perez – June 2, 2016

Cows living in their own manure on an industrial farm

Do you know what goes on behind the closed doors of huge food industries like Tyson? Do you know what they feed their animals? Do you know what kind of environment they put them in? The answer to these questions should be readily available to the public, but for some reason these questions remain shrouded in mystery. Thankfully experts like Michael Pollan have done some thorough research to provide us with some answers.

Over the years food politics has been debated by people who are for and against stronger government regulations. Some of these issues pertained to what is allowed in animal feed and in what ways must farmers go organic. There is no clear answer to these issues, but if we come together we can organize a call for a reform that will be the most beneficial to our health.

One of the biggest controversies that relate to food safety is the ways that government should get involved in the food industry in order to ensure our safety. Although the government already has certain regulations that companies and farmers must follow, they seem to be loosely enforced. The big question to ask yourself when thinking about this is “Do I trust the companies enough to properly regulate themselves and create proper limitations so that they can ensure their food is 100% safe for the world?” There was a time where no one ever had to think about this question, but recent investigations into the food industry, such as those done in the documentary “Food Inc.,” have forced us to rethink this question.

In the documentary Eric Schlosser stated that regulation agencies are being corrupted by people who originally took part in the food companies.  This raises the issue that the food companies may have political influence in the government. When you focus on the fact that it is very difficult to give branches of the government power to enforce food safety and the way the FDA loosely enforces regulations placed on the industry it makes this alleged influence seem very real. Ever since food safety has become a major issue to the public many steps have been taken to find a way to ensure the safety of the consumers.

Although food safety has at some points seemed to be a priority to the government it seems that many attempts to give federal agencies the power to “enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in Congress,” as said by Marion Nestle. Nestle’s idea is very similar to Schlosser in that they both believe that the food companies are hindering the process of giving federal agencies the power to regulate the food industry.

At one point the USDA created a feed ban that prevented “most protein derived from ruminants” from being put in feed being given to other ruminants.  A Consumers Report article wrote that a report done by the Government Accountability Office found that more than four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still had “not acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.”  The fact that the FDA had not taken action to firmly enforce the ban after four years should raise some red flags. This raises the question, if the FDA takes that long to enforce a ban that would prevent the spreading of diseases to other animals, then do they take as long to enforce other regulations that are equally or more important?

Although there are food regulations that are loosely enforced, there are a few regulations that are heavily enforced.  For example, there is one regulation that mandates the amount of pathogens, in percentage, needed to be killed in order for the food to be considered safe to eat.  The authors in an article from Scientific American claim that these “safe” percentages are too high.  They repeatedly mention that the “food safety officials often base their policies on the so-called worst-case scenario.”  Because of this basis many of the foods we eat are overcooked and lose a lot of their flavor.  This regulation is mostly in the restaurant business so it becomes very hard for cooks to create a dish that meets these standards and are also very flavorful. Flavor is one of the most important things for us when we eat, so it is hard for a cook to create the best and safest dish possible under these regulations. However if losing flavor means being able to ensure safety from any diseases, then it should not be a huge deal.  Food that is not cooked or undercooked can easily carry a pathogen such as E. coli O157:H7, so it is best to overcook it to make sure pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 are completely killed off. Our own health should definitely be a priority over the taste of a dish because at the end of the day you can choose to eat something else if you truly do not like the way it tastes.

One other major concern that has to do with food safety is in the animal feed and the living conditions of every animal.  Recently it has become a major trend to begin to feed animals corn.  The main reason for this is best explained by Michael Pollan in Food Inc. “Corn is really cheap and makes animal fat.”  The remainder of the feed is usually some kind of processed animal protein that is made of different, unused parts of the animals and sometimes even come from sick animals.  Even though it might seem disgusting to some people, according to David Fairfield in a Consumer Reports article, processed animal protein is considered to be “very nutritional feed ingredients” and all the feed ingredients are approved by the government

Although processed animal protein might be something that is truly healthy for the animals, we are still at risk against foodborne illnesses. The entire feed can be easily contaminated by one animal that was sick or just “by simply being stored in the wrong bin.” If one small case of contaminated feed is not dealt with properly then it could easily lead to a dangerous pathogen being spread to livestock and, in turn, to products that we buy and consume. This can result in widespread disease outbreak and even deaths if the feed process is not carefully managed.  The best way to avoid any foodborne illness is to cook your food until you are positive that it is completely cooked through so that the amount of pathogens left alive are very little to none.

As one can see the concern with food safety starts at the farm. When it comes to raising animals many big industry farms use certain techniques to raise production and efficiency. “Food Inc.” does a great job at revealing what really goes on in these farms and how it affects animals.  One company farmer named Vince Edwards, who worked for Tyson, said that they make their farmers raise their chickens “in the dark all the time.”  “Food Inc.” also has videos of the real conditions that the animals live in.  The cows are kept in pens without any room to move and have their own feces piling up around them.  This kind of environment is a feeding ground for dangerous pathogens.  If one cow gets sick then there is a chance that another cow in its pen will get sick too and eventually it could infect the entire pen.  Even if one cow is sick and does not spread the disease, there is still a chance for it to be processed and cause an outbreak.  Not only are these conditions inhumane for the animals, but they are also dangerous for us.

A way to solve this problem could be to revert back to the more traditional ways of farming such as free-range.  Joe Salatin, in “Food Inc.,” says that this is the best kind of farming because it keeps nature, the animals, and us healthy.  Reverting back to old farming ways seems like the best bet, but there are still dangers that the animals must face.  Blake Hurst, an industrial farmer, wrote an article that shares a few stories that reveal these dangers. When animals such as turkeys, cows, and chickens are raised free-ranged their biggest enemies are predators in the wild and the weather.

One of the stories that Hurst provides his audience is about how his neighbor raised free-range turkeys.  These turkeys were not smart enough to take shelter when it rained so one night his neighbor “lost 4,000 turkeys to drowning, along with his dream, and his farm.” Since there are apparent dangers that come with both types of farming, it is difficult to choose which one is the best.  Although animals are still at risk when being raised free- ranged it still looks to be the best option because they are free to do what they want and maintain a healthier living style.  Healthier animals mean less pathogens, and less pathogens mean less outbreaks.

For now the best we can do is to rally together and demand a better system in place to overlook the food industry. Even if it is a long and laborious road to get there it is something that we must achieve for ourselves and future generations. While we remain in this uncertain time where a foodborne illness outbreak could be waiting around the corner, I leave you with this advice “If you are unsure if it is thoroughly cooked, cook it a little bit longer.”