John Carino

Writing 205

Amy Barone

Food Politics

2/21/15

Everybody knows that cows eat grass, but it is less known that the cows whose meat most grocery stores sell were raised eating corn. This seems like it would not be much of an issue if it weren’t for the reason that this diet increases the likeliness of their meat being dangerous to eat and spreading dangers such as ecoli. 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 for Americans from issues such as food borne illnesses and diseases.

One reason that there has not been significant change in the problems caused by 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. Consumers have very little power in fighting these food industries, they cannot simply stop buying food. That is why it is important that the government plays a big role in standing up to the companies and making sure they stop hurting their consumers.

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 nutritious “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. Many companies that sell “organic” foods are owned by the larger conventional brands that they pretend to be competing with. This is another form of deception and sly misleading that needs to be stopped. 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. By advocating for more clear and detailed labels consumers can be significantly more informed on their decision making when purchasing food. 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 an industry with a primary purpose to serve the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products. One small step at a time of making the right decisions in making food safe will have a significant impact on creating a safer America. It will take time effort from much of the population, but it is not an impossible goal.

Works cited:

“You Are What They Eat.” Consumer Reports, January 2005.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions.” The American, October 1, 2012.

Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

Food Politics: Money Over Everything

            You may think your food supply is safe, but is that really in the best interest of producers? If it was, why has there been an epidemic of food outbreaks over the past decade? Perhaps the only health food producers are concerned about is the health of their bank accounts.

It is impossible to deny that that over the past decade, the technology used in the United States’ food production system has improved greatly. The United States is now able to produce a great deal more crops, such as corn or soybeans, in a fraction of the land required in the 20^th century. Another scientific and agricultural accomplishment that the food production industry is responsible for is the significant reduction in time of growth for chickens. In the mid-20^th century it took roughly a little more than 3 months to raise a full grown chicken, today on the other hand a full grown chicken can be produced in less than 50 days. This rapid advance of the food production industry is the result of the growing population and demand for food in the United States. Although these advances have allowed us to have a steady food supply, they have also presented problems for regulating government agencies. These advances create loopholes in existing regulations in which food producers can take advantage of.  Another problem is the close relationships that some of the regulating agencies have with food producers. Top food producers are able to pressure regulating agencies, such as the FDA or USDA, in order to sway regulations in their favor.

Issues are made clear, from multiple viewpoints in Food Inc., You Are What They Eat, Marian Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, and Blake Hurst’s Organic Illusions. These texts have brought up issues and controversies that I have not heard about before in my life. These texts have been able to provide me with both sides of a “war” that I did not really know was going on. I admit I was ignorant to the supposed corruption between food production companies and Federal agencies such as the FDA, as well as the lack of consideration for the health and safety of the general public. I knew money made the world go round but I thought we at least cared about ourselves as a society more than making money. This appears to be one of, if not the largest motivating factor in this ‘war’ we call food politics. All of the pieces we have read or watched have had consistent themes throughout one another, although they did not necessarily take the same stance on the same issues. For example Organic Illusions by Hurst was clearly against the method of production used by the organic food industry and one of his main arguments was that organic production is not efficient enough to sustain the entire country, and would require more workers to join the work force. “People who are now working in other industries would have to leave them in order to provide the manpower necessary to replace technology in agriculture, and what they would have produced in those careers would figure into the cost of organic farming. These opportunity costs would be huge” (Hurst). It is clear that this argument is based on the premise that it would cost too much money to have only organic, ‘healthier’ food. Similarly, In Food Inc. Carole Morison was explaining how she was being forced to always upgrade to new equipment, along with various other farmers interviewed during the film. In particular Morison was in the predicament where she needed to upgrade her chicken coop to an enclosed version, which was even more inhumane than the conditions that chickens were currently in. These chickens would die daily due to sicknesses caused by living in close quarters in their own feces. This showed me that the food producers don’t care about the safety of the animals or the people that consume them, and that they only care about making extra money on having more chickens in a smaller inhumane space and upgrade fees. Continuing with the common thread of money being the most important factor, in Nestle’s “Resisting Food Safety” she clearly addresses many current and growing problems relating to our food supply and the increasing number of food-borne illnesses. She calls out organizations and federal agencies on their corruption and oversight of food handling and contamination issues going on with our food supply. She also explains how agencies such as the FDA are not able to put regulations in motion due to a lack of funding. This surprised me because it shows how we don’t have a priority for the general public’s food safety. Nestle and Food Inc. both bring up the argument that there are people who hold positions of power in government agencies such as the FDA that have close connections with Big name food producers, such as Monsanto. In “You Are What They Eat” both sides of the argument on food safety is brought fourth. However a common theme throughout the article that stuck me was when the people working for the food industry were saying that these cheap and fast solutions that kill bacteria on our food, instead of addressing the issue that is actually causing the growth of harmful bacteria on our food. For example, they say that cattle and chicken are still fed corn based feeds. This corn based fed is known to causes growth of unwanted bacteria inside the animals that eat it, however it is significantly cheaper to feed the animals corn because it is cheaply available. Michael Pollan, an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in various publications around the world exposing the problems in the food production industry, says in Food Inc. “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” This requires food producers to use ammonia solutions on possible contaminated meats, which is also shown in Food Inc. This means that food producers would rather save money on feed and have a cheaper, not necessarily safer, solution to food contamination, instead of addressing the source of the food contamination, the feed.

Nestle’s article on food safety in particular addresses the complicated politics that involve the government’s ability to properly regulate the United States’ food production standards and safety protocols. “Although outbreaks of food-borne illness have become more dangerous over the years, food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal”(Nestle, 27). Nestle points out that major food industries have significant power when it comes to rallying against an unfavorable regulation proposed by government agencies. This claim is further backed up by Food Inc. when the small farmers that were fighting a very powerful company, Monsanto who is the creator of genetically modified soy beans. The fact that Monsanto is the creator and patent holder of these seeds not only gives them total control over their product, it also gives them legal and financial power over the farmers that use their seeds. Monsanto has made it illegal for farmers to save their seeds, which is a serious concern for neighboring farmers that do not use Monsanto products. Roger Nelson was interviewed in Food Inc. because he was being sued by Monsanto for promoting other farmers to save their seed by continuing to save his non-genetically modified seed as well as his clients’. Ultimately, Nelson was unable to continue running his farm and business due to a copious amount of legal fees. Furthermore Nestle goes on to say in her article “the FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under the pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of drugs” (Nestle, 46). Perhaps this is a wake up call for government agencies to take power away from the businessmen and into the hands of the correct regulating agencies that way the public can be assured a safer food supply.

In conclusion, all of these texts share the same information stated in a way that supports their arguments, however the most common theme when you look from an unbiased perspective is that it is easier for the food industry to find a cheap adjustment to the system we have instead of changing the parts of the system that need to be. It all seems to boil down to money being the main wall that is preventing the proper regulations to take place to make our food supply safer.

Today, the majority of people in the United States do not know where their food is coming from. This is probably because the people in charge of our food industry do not want people to know that our food system is completely corrupt.

Corruption is a simple matter of right and wrong. Anyone or anything can become corrupt based on the actions the person or thing practices. In this case, the food system that is used to circulate the majority of the world’s food products to public markets has become corrupt. The interesting part about our corrupt food system is that most of the people who consume the products have no idea where these products came from or how they were prepared. In the food system we have today, four or five large corporations own the majority of all food products sold in grocery stores today. There are hundreds of different brands of meat, produce, snacks, or whatever types of food you can think of that are sold in a supermarket but, its really only a handful of corporations that own the greater part of all of them. In the film Food Inc., Michael Pollan, an American author, activist, and professor of journalism at UC Berkeley talks about how big business has run our American food industry into the ground. Pollan goes on to say, “The average grocery store has 47,000 products which makes it look like there is a large variety of choice – but it is an illusion – there are only a few major companies and a few major crops involved.” Pollan and the rest of the experts go on to talk about how big business runs the food industry and how their methods to grow bigger and better food have substituted the quality of our food for higher profits. That’s the problem, if people knew that large corporations were behind our food and that they were making our food in an unnatural, inhumane manner, they would probably have something to say about it. Our food system is corrupt because the people in charge of it know what they are doing is wrong but, they still do it anyway. In an ideal world, the people who know the most about our food would be in charge of developing how our food system works. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

The meat in our grocery stores is not prepared in a friendly, heartfelt way. The way most people want to believe that their meat is prepared is that the animal is born and raised on a farm where it was able to roam free and grow the way god intended it to live. They believe the animal was killed humanely by the farmers who raised it in a way that did not make the animal suffer. That would be nice if it were true. The fact of the matter is, in this corrupt food system we have today, animals are basically tortured in cramped quarters from birth up until the moment they are slaughtered. Eric Schlosser, another American author and journalist from Food Inc. discusses how the animals that are raised in these massive farms and slaughterhouses are inhumanely mistreated. Schlosser says, “Plus they are now feeding corn to animals like cows who, by evolution, are designed to eat grass and in some cases farmers are even teaching fish how to eat corn because it is so cheap.” Aside from not giving these animals the proper space and freedom to grow, these farms are feeding the animals feed that they cannot naturally digest. The farms use corn feed and growth hormones to fatten up these animals so we can harvest twice as much meat as these animals were supposed to carry. Several facts and statistics about how the chickens we eat every day are actually being grown are up on truthaboutchicken.org. Today, Chickens are being grown to twice the weight of chicken Sixty years ago in about half the time. An appalling fact found on this site included, “Many chickens lie in their own waste for much of their lives, with open sores and infections. These unhealthy conditions could potentially increase the risk of foodborne illnesses like salmonella.” The processes used in our food systems are horrific and mind-boggling but, the worst part is these corrupt practices are potentially life-threatening for humans. Because of the unethical methods used in today’s food industry, humans are contracting various foodborne illnesses from tainted meats that are sold every day in local grocery stores. These illnesses are the result of the unsanitary facilities that are used to raise and prepare these animals for slaughter. Cows and chickens are raised on farms with very little space and little to no maintenance, meaning these animals are constantly walking, living, and sleeping in their own feces which is a great way to get exposed to infections and other types of illnesses. The number of people that have been getting sick from these types of tainted meat have not necessarily been greatly increasing; the diseases have just been getting worse. Marion Nestle, a well known author and professor of nutrition at NYU, gives us some facts and statistics about these foodborne illnesses and how they’ve progressed. She says, “Some years ago, a carefully investigated Listeria outbreak among 142 people who had eaten a commercially produced unpasteurized soft cheese caused 48 deaths and 13 cases of meningitis.” Nestle goes on to talk about how foodborne illnesses used to be some small form of Salmonella or Staphylococcus or some pathogen that was easily treated and resulted in pretty standard, non-lethal symptoms like diarrhea, stomach pains, nausea, etc. However, since the early 1990s the versions of these viruses and bacteria have been getting much more aggressive and much more deadly than they have been in the past. Diseases are scary and its scary to know you can contract these types of diseases from the food you buy at the super market everyday.

If our food system is having all these problems, shouldn’t we be doing something about it? Shouldn’t there be some sort of authoritative body to watch over these food production systems to make sure our food is actually safe to eat? We do, the only problem is, the groups in charge of watching over how our food is made play a big part in how our food industry has become corrupt. Government programs like the FDA, USDA, and CDC are supposed to watch over food processing facilities and make sure there aren’t any health code violations, unhygienic processing practices, or any other method that could lead to possible contamination of meats or other food products. Consumer Reports, You are what they eat, discussed a great deal about how our government and how our food regulation departments, like the FDA, aren’t really doing anything about the way our food is being processed. The members of Consumer Reports were able to talk to feed-company executives and they said, “Our investigation raises concern that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” Even the executives from these corporations agree that the production of their food is a potential risk to the health of their consumer. A major reason for this is that there are not enough FDA and USDA inspectors to consistently watch over the vast number of slaughterhouses and livestock farms that are in this country. The FDA has around 700 employees in charge of inspecting all the processing plants that produce meat, eggs and poultry; which results in each one of these places getting an inspection every one to five years. Even when there are certain health and safety violations that are found in these processing plants, if the farm is owned by one of the large corporations, the heads of the corporations always has a friend on the inside of the FDA or somewhere in these government-based departments to help them get out of it. We learned a great deal about how former corporation executives from places like Monsanto land authoritative positions in departments like the FDA and USDA and are able to help their old business partners when they get into a bind. It is difficult to think of a way to free our food industry from the clutches of big business when these corporate executives have monopolized the industry around them.

The corruption that has overwhelmed our food industry starts and ends with big business. We cannot rely on greedy business owners to take proper care of our food. Large profits are not a reasonable compromise when it puts consumers at risk. We know what is going on behind the closed curtain of our food system; now its just about making an effort to do something about it.

Yes, we’d all like to know what is in our food. At the moment, we do not have a way to track our meals from the animal it came from to its packaging at the supermarket, and we’ll likely have to wait decades before we see any improvement on that front. However, with the elections coming up later this year, now would be a perfect time to address what the government is doing to make sure we all eat pathogen-free meals.

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… well, 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 needs to take further steps to convince us that they are concerned with our health.

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 nowhere 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…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 many people like Nestle, who believe that “The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture affects food-borne 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 food-borne 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.”

Roberto A. Ferdman of The Washington Post also addresses issues of FDA and USDA oversight in interview with Bill Marler, a lawyer specializing in food-borne illness. When asked to speak about his “few major frustrations with food safety in the United States,” Marler solemnly explains that “On the FDA’s side, which is 80 percent of our other food supplies and imports, there’s a skeleton crew of inspectors,” and that “Most of the food-borne illness outbreaks that [Marler has] been involved in over the past 20 or 30 years, most of the manufacturing facilities have never had an FDA inspector in them.”

So, everyone is in agreement that the government is not doing as much as they can to monitor the safety of the food we are eating and feeding to our children. Instances have occurred in the past decade where organic and non-organic foods alike have cause food-borne illnesses in people. Why not address the oversight of both foods instead of uselessly discussing which food we should eat? It seems concerning that not only are members of the government not regulating the food we eat properly, but also are making money from these big name companies. The candidates running for office cannot answer questions on steps they will take to ensure that our food is safe if they are not asked. It is up to us, the people eating these meals to bring it up. After all, when is the last time you heard of a government official suffering from the effects of E. coli?

Isabella Suppa

Prof Phillips

WRT 205

Some Truths About Our Food

    “In just 2002, the typical American consumed an average of 137 pounds of beef, chicken, fish, and shellfish per year,” states the article You Are What They Eat. While we are lead to believe that beef, chicken, fish and shellfish are the source of power and protein that are body craves, nonetheless, that is not always the case. Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella, and E-Coli are amongst the most common illnesses from these various foods, totaling 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths and most of us are not even aware of this. According to Resisting Food Safety, “Many pathogens infect the animals we use for food without causing any visible signs of illness.” Today a major proponent to these illnesses is the grand scale that our food is being produced on. Unbeknownst to many, the packaging on items is solely an illusion and only a few corporations control the whole industry. Another leading debate among the food industry is weather or not the suppliers and demanders should go organic or remain conventional.

    According to Resisting Food Safety “In the late 1980’s health officials found salmonella in one-third of all poultry and estimated that 33 million Americans experienced at least one episode of foodborne microbial illness each year.” With this being said the outbreaks of food borne illnesses over the years are becoming more dangerous and prevalent and food producers are resisting the attempts of government agencies to impose controlled measures- “… food producers repeatedly deny responsibility for foodborne illness…”(Resisting Food Safety). Today, the most blatant illness is the E-Coli outbreak. E-coli derives from infections that come in direct contact with food and water that have been contaminated with feces; the virus then eventually kills red blood cells and can be lethal. Years ago people were only aware of undercooked hamburger, and ground beef to be the only sources of E. coli. However, today things such as fruits, vegetables, apple cider and sprouts have also been infected. A prime example of this was when E. coli swept Chipotle’s all across the country. An obstacle among the 58 cases that broke out is that Chipotle could not find the direct source of the E. coli- possibly stemming from the tomatoes or beef. Food, Inc. displays an instance in beef where the illness was lethal to 2-year-old Kevin. Kevin passed away from E-coli in his burger, and it turned out that the beef Kevin consumed was not recalled until 16 days after. Kevin’s mom sought justice in honor of Kevin, and now a law has now been put into place, “Kevin’s Law”- Kevin’s Law allows the USDA to shut down plants.

            We go the supermarket and see dozens of options and brands thinking that each came from different places. However, the truth is that this is just an illusion; much of all the products come from the same plants. As quoted in Food, Inc. a farmer’s goal is to “produce a lot of food, with a small amount of land, at an affordable price.” Frankly, a few major corporations control the whole industry. Small farms raising numerous kinds of crops and animals have been replaced by unfathomably large factory like methods. Today, Tyson is one of the leading meat packing companies in the nation, in 1970 Tyson controlled 5-25% of the market, today Tyson now controls 40-80% of the meat packing market. Inevitably when raising massive populations of chicken or cattle in the same location calls for more manure then can be contained or converted to fertilizer. Normally when farmers raise an average amount of animals they can control and compost the waste, which is a process that usually generates enough heat to kill bacteria. Today that is much harder to get done with the volume of animals inevitably increasing the tendency for contamination and illness.

            From personal experience in my local grocery store, I see the organic section continuing to expand each year. Years ago we didn’t have three isles dedicated solely to organic products with options that expand to organic shampoo, make up, toothpaste and much more. According to Food, Inc. the organic industry is growing at an annual rate of 20%, however as stated in Organic Illusions “The quantity of organic sales constitutes considerably less than 4 percent of the total market.” The argument of organic food versus conventional food is a prevalent topic among farmers today. In the article You are what they eat discussed is going organic, “If all animals were raised organically on feed lacking pesticides, animal byproducts and antibiotics- would our food supply be safer? Yes in some ways. There would be less risk of mad cow disease, little or no arsenic in chicken … But there is no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden- variety bacteria, including salmonella.” Ironically when deciding between organic or conventional food, in organic food no check is ever done to test the reliability of these titles. Although you are may be buying organically, organic foods have a higher rates of deadly E. coli, while conventional foods were higher in pesticide residue that substantially less toxic. Lastly, if we were to go organic, there is not enough land readily available for production as quoted in Organic Illusions, “ If food demand nearly doubles over the next 50 years, as its predicted to do, there just isn’t enough arable land available to support a wholesale adoption of organic methods.”

        Unfortunately today the reality is that the food we consume on a daily basis is not always safe. Foodborne illnesses have had an affect all across the country in a variety of different ways. Many different kinds of illnesses have been seen with E. coli being the most dominant. The harsh reality is that our food is coming from all the same places and it is very hard to regulate things on such a grand scale. Even organic “all natural” food is not always the answer. While, this may all be the case today- I am hopeful that in the future with awareness our food production ways can be changed and it can lead to a healthier lifestyle.

Do you know the true cost of your food? While it may only be a few dollars at the grocery store, in reality your food comes from a poorly regulated industry that is wreaking havoc on the environment and putting your health, and the health of everyone around you at risk.

Our food production technology is at its height, but that technology is  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. This means a fairly small agency monitors all of our food, drugs, and even our meat all the way up until it is killed.

At the same time,  the much  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. It also shows how easily and often oversight happens regarding our food.

For example, at one point she mentions, “the law specified that the department’s (USDA’s) authority began at the slaughterhouse. USDA inspectors had no right to recall meat once it left the plant. If USDA inspectors believed that a packing plant was producing tainted meat, their only recourse was to deny further inspection, in effect forcing the plant to close.”

The USDA is not able to prevent outbreaks, and if an outbreak does happen, they may not recall the product. This is a clear problem, since their only real course of action is to stop doing their job and shut down a plant in that way. Nestle also points out that the original legislature for the food industry was created to protect the animals, indicating one reason the agencies may have so many issues.

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 talks about how animals are given antibiotics, even if they are not sick, to try and prevent diseases.

Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions points out that harmful chemicals such as ammonia have been shown to not be harmful in small doses; however, he does not mention that there is still a real threat of antibiotic resistance. 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 are approved to be part of animal feed, as long as they are not fed to other cows.

Meanwhile, 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 restriction of not feeding downer cows to other cows is lax. For instance, “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?

Another consequence of the ever-growing food industry may be an environmental one. 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 despise. 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.

Food Inc. shows this when introducing a lower class family that has to feed themselves. Rather than buy fruit and healthier foods in the grocery store, the family eats at McDonald’s most days because they can afford it, and it doesn’t take too much time out of their busy schedule.

Because of their inability to buy nutritious food, the whole family is overweight or even obese, and now has to budget in diabetes medication for the father.

What we should be asking the food industry is, should they really be risking the health and lives of family in order to make a larger profit? Why is addictive fast food so cheap when less dangerous food is too expensive for many people in America?

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.

There are critics to organic food, like Blake Hurst, who in Organic Illusions cites facts from a study done by Stanford University comparing organic produce and conventionally grown produce. According to Hurst, growing all of our food organically will cause a shortage of land, labor and cause us to revert to the early 1900s when tractors did not exist.

While Hurst does bring up certain points, like the fact that the government does not check to see if companies are actually following organic guidelines, and there are natural pesticides. Hurst incorrectly cites the Stanford experiment, which already has results that conflict with other studies.

 One would think that the government would prioritize public and animal health when it comes to putting food on our table, but the real priority for food producers, the government and its regulatory agencies: money. A lot of it. The food industry is continuing to grow and change rapidly with a rise in demand and production. The United States Government is the watch dog over the food industries giving the responsibility to a handful of agencies. An example that can prove how the food industry has changed is the time it takes for a chicken to grow. In the 1950s it took about 3 months to fully raise a chicken, now it takes only 49 days. That’s about half the time! How does that happen? Something is doesn’t seem right and this is what we will discuss in this post. The food industry has evolved substantially in the past century, however, the government hasn’t been able to properly enforce regulations thus creating regulatory loopholes that food producers are able to bypass. Although the government is heavily influenced by these top companies, change can happen with the public being exposed to and aware of all of these faulty practices that are putting money at a higher priority than the health of its consumers.

GREED

One thing that I have recently started to realize is that money runs this country. It’s as simple as that. As populations grew so did the demand for food. Farmers needed to produce a lot and fast. The example mentioned above truly shows how farmers have been altering their practices in order to keep up with the rising demand. How can the amount of time a chicken fully grows be cut in half? One answer that I can give you is that it definitely is not natural or healthy. Not only is it unhealthy food but it’s food that costs nothing (I wouldn’t even consider it food). As a matter of fact, “every year in the U.S., 11 billion pounds of animal fat is recycled into animal feed.” We’re feeding the animals that we eat recycled animal fat? Why is that? Because it’s cheap. In You Are What They Eat the article says for food producers and companies “the goal: to fatten animas as fast and as cheaply as possible.”  In Food Inc., Michael Pollan, who is an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in many publications around the world highlighting the problems of the food industry, said that “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” We have all heard of the recent outbreaks of E. Coli that have happened at Chipotle which even made the store close all of its chains on one day. E. Coli is no joke and people can lose their lives but one thing that really angers me is that the practices the food industry is using today produces more E. Coli. Michael Pollan also goes on to say “give an animal grass in one day and 80% of the E. Coli they have will be gone.” But why don’t they feed their animals grass if it got rid of all that E. Coli? Because they wouldn’t achieve their “goal” and their chickens wouldn’t be able to grow fully in 49 days.

REGULATORY LOOPHOLES

One of my biggest concerns about the food industry are the regulatory loopholes that are present so easily accessible. In You Are What They Eat by Consumer Reports the problem is introduced right off the bat. “Our investigation raises the concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the food supplies……Regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection.” Regulatory loopholes can allow any type of infection! The United States Government has the responsibility to protect its citizens but yet there are regulatory loopholes in an industry that provides the food that we put on the table for all types of people to eat from little kids to the elderly. Food is a life necessity and we cannot live without it but yet we can’t be sure about the safety of the food we put on our tables? That’s scary. One question on my mind is how are there regulatory loopholes? I believe the following reasons from a few experts help answer that question for us.

In Organic Illusions by Blake Hurst points out something that doesn’t make me feel any better. Hurst says, “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims. So, even if all procedures are followed, it’s possible that conventional pesticides are present—either from drift from neighboring conventionally farmed fields, or because the producer has been less than honest in his certification.” Although he says organic foods that can mean that any foods are like that as well. God knows what type of containments people have been consuming with there good. How are food producers able to lie about how they grow their food? This is a prime example of the government and regulatory agencies not doing its job. If these loopholes are present in the food industry, I can only imagine what kind of loopholes can be exposed in all other industries. In You Are What They Eat, it is mentioned that “about 80 percent of seafood sold in the U.S. is imported. Yet the FDA tests only about 2 percent of those imports, mainly for drug residues.” Wow. If food that is imported is barely tested for contaminations (mainly drug residue but they should be looking for ALL possible containments) then it must be extremely easy for food that is produced domestically to pass tests and end up on our plates. The inspection and testing procedure is completely broken. Farmers can lie about the way they grow their food and much testing isn’t done. The government can do more but they haven’t and in You Are What They Eat, it says that “the Government Accountability Office, has called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s data on inspections of animal feed producers “severely flawed.” Yet federal food-safety agencies have failed to tighten restrictions.” How have these food agencies failed to tighten restrictions?

Marion Nestle helps answer the question of how these food agencies have failed to tighten restrictions and how they have failed to protect the consumer’s health and interests in his work called “The Politics of Food Safety.” Nestle says, “attempts to give federal agencies the right to enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in Congress, sometimes joined by the agencies themselves.” I can only think of one word to describe this: corruption. Marion Nestle even goes on to say that there has been a “historic closeness of working relationships among congressional agriculture committees, federal regulatory agencies and food producers.” How can it get better if there is such heavy influence from these top companies? According to Food Inc., “in 1910 the top 4 companies had a market share of 25%, today the top 4 have a market share of 80%.” In addition to that, at one point in the documentary it showed how some of the top company executives ended up holding a high level position for the same regulatory agencies that were regulating the companies they used to work for. Whose interests are put first at that point? The company or the consumer? The company. You would think that it couldn’t go any further than the government and its agencies being heavily influenced (corrupt) however, Blake Hurst from Organic Illusions brings up another controversial point. In his article he uses a study that was published from scientists and researchers from Stanford University. The article says that “a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” Later in the article Mr. Hurst then brings this into light “Stanford University and the authors have been accused of being in bed with food producer Cargill, and all the bishops of the foodie orthodoxy have responded by disagreeing and, in many instances, changing the subject.” Why would food producers, such as Cargill, love a study that says organic food has the same health benefits as food that is grown conventionally? Because growing organic food is more expensive than growing food conventionally. However, that is not the part that strikes me. The part that strikes me the most is the fact that a private university, including professors and scientists and everyone that helped with study, are also being corrupt/heavily influenced by these food producers. A study from a private university that used scientists and professors should be telling the truth and if they were telling the truth they wouldn’t be “changing the subject.” Hurst then delivers the final blow by saying, “How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety of organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?” Like I mentioned previously, all of this revealing information is simply scary.

To say this is scary can actually be an understatement. Money is starting to run everything, or maybe it already has and I’m just starting to realize it now. When it comes to the food industry politics shouldn’t be involved as much as they are and money shouldn’t be a higher priority than the health of the consumer. People’s lives are at stake, including young children. Why should I be questioning my trust with the government when it comes to the food industry? I shouldn’t be. Then I start to question many other things such as the medicine that we are prescribed. What’s in it and where is it coming from? We don’t really know what we are consuming. Change can only come with the public becoming aware of the flaws in the system. With the corruption of these agencies and the amount of influence the food producers have on Congress, it only makes the fight harder. But with wide public support and more flaws being exposed this can change and I believe it will.

Pierce Noonan

Prof. Amy Barone

WRT205

1400 word draft

The way we eat has changed more over the past 50 years than the previous 10,000 years before that. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It is a great representation of the idea on how much change our generation has accomplished. However, when we have a food system that is being brought up with topics like federal oversight, E. coli breakouts, and even abusing and bullying local farmers and seed planters; there is definitely still room for improvement. Our food system is being blamed for lying to the consumers about the truth behind the production of food and exactly how safe these products on our shelves of a food market are. The major companies in our food system are abusive to smaller workers to an extent that it needs to be contained. Federal oversight to the point where the consumer is hurt by food borne illnesses is a major problem and there must be an answer to this issue.

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., producer Robert Kenner 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 is likely to harm the consumer 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. 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 within these states. 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 make it through the night without having to call a doctor? 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 conflicts results in lack of trust in the food production process, especially sometimes resulting in the worst case, loss of life.

Not only does this disease erect at the hands of the producers watch, the ingredients farmers give their animals are creating other issues 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 a prion, “can be malformed and infect cud-chewing animals with mad cow disease.” This illness is spread throughout the community it lives in and eventually infects other organisms beyond that ecosystem. Even in an article, “Organic Illusions,” by a Missouri farmer and frequent contributor to The American, Blake Hurst, he argues the effects of organic against conventional styles of farming. It is stated that, “organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in e. coli.” No matter how you make food or treat it, there are chances of e. coli. However, food borne illness is a problem that effects the consumer because producers and whoever is in charge do not commit to the responsibility of providing healthy food products.

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 by 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, who lost her son to a disease that came from a food that got passed by inspection, 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 answered, “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. Another 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 purchase he has made. 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.

There are so many questions that can be asked about what is being done to prevent the bad habits of our food system. How much can we, the consumers, do to make a change? Well we can only do as much as we are allowed to. The food system may have changed extremely, however it is in need of an even bigger change. Many people like Robert Kenner, producer of Food Inc., and Marion Nestle, nutrition specialist and writer of “Resisting Food Safety,” are announcing the truth and are fighting to make a difference in our food society. Others like Consumer Reports’, “You Are What They Eat,” and Blake Hurst’s, “Organic Illusions,” are arguing to inform the reader and let the world know exactly what is at steak(stake) when it comes to the food that we eat every single day.

“The Food and Drug Administration will conduct fewer food safety inspections this year because of the government sequester. The loss of $209 million from its budget will force the agency to conduct about 2,100 fewer inspections.” – Liz Szabo

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 exercise their authority in situations that matter the most. A huge flaw within the system starts Congress, and their continued lack of enthusiasm when it comes to inspecting our foods.

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. I cant help but question whether the founding of the FDA was an act of concern for citizens of the United States or a play to distract citizens from the actual problems that lie within the government. 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.” I agree 100%. The main concern of the United States government is the military, more the half of the country’s budget is dedicated to military spending. 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. We might think since state legislatures are local when compared to Congress, they would go the extra mile to protect the people, wrong. Many elected government officials are endorsed by these same dictators within the food industry and sadly, local state legislatures are just as correct as the government. Money is a major deciding factor in all business, executive, and even political decisions. 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 (yuck). 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. The FDA did not always lack in their field, In 1977, they proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed but were overruled by Congress under pressure received from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and makers of the drug.  How much power does Congress hold if they are being manipulated into allowing potential harm into human bodies? One might think the solution to antibiotics is to go organic, but what does it really mean for foods to be “organic”?

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). Would you rather risk getting E. Coli, which could ultimately end in death or condone the use of toxins use to kill things such as E. Coli? 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 (FDA) 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? Why should consumers trust producers if they cant even trust their government who took no responsibility for food safety until the last 1800’s?

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. One may ask why the FDA has no stepped in and demanded producers to take precautionary measures? I’ll tell you why, because $209 million of teh FDA’s bughet was cut and took effect on March 1st, 2013 as part of automatic budget cuts. The blame no shifts immediately back to high up government officials who were responsible for these budget cuts.  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. No matter what stand point we view it from, there is no way out of this dark hole we call the food industry. They are backed by government officials and basically have the power to walk over everyone including us. As consumers we never know what we are really eating, we fall into the trap of advertisement, which makes us want to go out and buy these foods. Some of us are restricted by prices and cannot afford to buy the highest quality products and we all know the story behind low quality foods. Many choose to go organic but how would they be able to prove or test this?

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. (hyper link sources, the first time you talk about it you must source it)